374 réponses à ce sujet

[dointime85]

terdferguson123 wrote...

Kuari999 wrote...

When you destroy all that makes organic life what it is in order to save it? Yeah, that's flawed and circular logic. This isn't a matter of opinion.

I hate using wiki for this but:
http://en.wikipedia....cular_reasoning

Its the EXACT definition of it. I'm sorry, but that sort of logic never works, so while I don't mind the catalyst having crappy logic like that, I sure as hell don't want my Shepard agreeing with it.

No, it isn't, because your presuming to know what "All that makes organic life what it is" All that organic life is, is carbon based life (while, in science it's not confirmed if life on other planets would be carbon based it is VERY much believed that it would be). If they are preventing the destruction of carbon based life in any way, then it is not circular logic.

Also, the catalyst believes that it manages to preserve organic life in reaper form: To us, that doesn't make sense at all because the building of a reaper through dna-soup does not preserve all the emotions, values and dynamics that make organic life precious. Therefore, to him the destroy organic life to protect organic life translates to extract and preserve organic life to enable new organic life to develop which isn't circular anymore, though - again - horribly flawed.

Modifié par dointime85, 24 mars 2012 - 09:38 .

[Evil Minion]

Helishorn wrote...

The problem is that when you break a story down and really look at it the whole dammed thing falls apart in the face of logic. Let's just take a look at a few?

So Frodo has to carry the ring the whole way? The mighty wizard can't do anything to speed up the trip...like summon giant eagles to help out or something? And while im at it why is it you dont ever see any real magic effects from gandalf? I mean sure he stops the balrog with a shield spell. But after that he only does a few parlor tricks at best

So why is it that every episode of star trek forgets about the technology that was created in the last episode?

So harry potter gets a hold of a time travel necklace and they are in a hurry to stop something? There's no hurry...you have necklace that lets you time travel...you could to France for a few days and then pop back in time to take care of whatever you need to do with no worries!

So in empire strikes back Luke goes to get trained by Yoda at the same time his friends are being chased by the empire. By the looks of it Han and the crew are on the run for a few days to a week. Meanwhile Luke picks up the force like it's as easy as mowing the lawn. His final test? Defeat Darth Vader! Does it seem like this is a huge jump in skill level? 'Hey..You have gone through a week of basic training. If you want to stay in the marines you're going to have to defeat seal team six. Good luck!.'

Is it any wonder the whole mass effect series falls apart when you look at it like this?

Win.

Why didn't the Empire know to board-up that one stupid spot on the Deathstar before Luke blew it up?

There's no logic.......

Modifié par Evil Minion, 24 mars 2012 - 09:39 .

[fropas]

Sunnyhat1 wrote...

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

It is impossible to compute the probability of an event which has never happened.

So when they had the very first lottery they couldn't determine the odds of winning because nobody hit the jackpot yet?

As much as i'd love to agree with the rest of your post. Errm yeah ..no. Sorry.

You can compute the probability of any event. It's just a question of information.

How can you calculate the odds of a lottery without knowing how many people are buying tickets? Until that happens they wouldn't really be able to accurately assume the probability that someone would win.

[Meltemph]

Mighty_BOB_cnc wrote...

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

We argued a bit before, and other people in the thread are picking your argument apart, but this point I want to address again because nobody is doing a good job of tackling it.

terdferguson123 wrote...

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.

It is impossible to compute the probability of an event which has never happened.

We know with certainty that synthetics have never wiped out all organic life, because organic life still exists. There is no way to know what the chance of a singularity wiping out all organic life is, because it has never happened.

If your assumption that the Catalyst only understands mathematics is true, then it is incapable of even conceiving of this situation on its own.

Also, it is believed that the Reapers and the boy are synthetics. Some people disagree about whether they really are or not, but let's assume for a moment that they are, and the Catalyst isn't lying about the purpose of the Reapers. This means that somebody created the Reapers. If the Catalyst created them, then somebody created the Catalyst to prevent the elimination of all organic life. If someone programmed the Catalyst to assume that synthetics will eventually destroy organics completely, then this would explain why it thinks that. But it's still wrong because the destruction of all organic life has never happened.

This post is winning.

His point will go ignored...trust me. Nobody cares apparently about this point, except a few.  People would rather talk about the choices and what not and ignore the glaring problem that the ending just doesnt make sense.  People are willing to fill the void of nothingness in order to justify their experience or lack there of.

[defenestrated]

Evil Minion wrote...

Agreed.

I don't mind ambiguous endings, but I don't think they "work" in video games.

Most people who pay $60.00 want some definitive closure.

I think ambiguous endings are like just about any other type of ending, in that how well they works depends on they fit with the rest of the story. Ambiguous endings, unreliable narrators, etc - it all comes down to how well the rest of the story supports it.

Given how "unknowable" the Reapers were presented as in three games, I'd have actually been okay with never really understanding the cycle. It would have been a creepy mystery. The explanation left a lot to be desired.

[Mighty_BOB_cnc]

My logic is undeniable. My logic is undeniable. My logic is undeniable. So sayeth the godchild!

[dointime85]

fropas wrote...

Sunnyhat1 wrote...

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

It is impossible to compute the probability of an event which has never happened.

So when they had the very first lottery they couldn't determine the odds of winning because nobody hit the jackpot yet?

As much as i'd love to agree with the rest of your post. Errm yeah ..no. Sorry.

You can compute the probability of any event. It's just a question of information.

How can you calculate the odds of a lottery without knowing how many people are buying tickets? Until that happens they wouldn't really be able to accurately assume the probability that someone would win.

No, it only depends on the number of possible combinations. The number of ticket-buyers only determines how likely it is that a certain number of people get the right number.

[Painaid]

Even if the Geth are young and eventually do turn on organics, who is the star child to condemn them or all organics to death just on the basis of an eventual outcome? It runs contrary to the theme of self-determination that Shepard has fought for in all 3 games. It's just bizarre how he sits down and accepts this starchild's logic without any question hesitation concerning all the feats he has accomplished up to that point which contradict it.

[21constable]

JulienJaden wrote...

I understand the idea behind the Catalyst's reasoning.

However, it had to be created at some point. Whoever created it had to be faced with what Catalyst was supposed to prevent.
So, what happened to them? They ordered the Catalyst to find a solution and then it invented the Reapers and wiped them from the face of the galaxy? And we know they couldn't have been close to extinction because otherwise, they wouldn't have been able to muster the manpower necessary to create the Catalyst or the Citadel. And if they didn't need manpower for them, they could have simply gotten rid of the crazy AI and its minions again. Self-preservation is a pretty high priority for every race and none would abandon it lightly, just to "save everybody else". 

So, basically, whoever set all this in motion was supposed to let the Reapers, synthethic beings, willingly destroy them so that synthetic beings wouldn't destroy them and everything else?
And why would synthetics eliminate all life? Why would they do that? Did the geth kill all the plants and animals? Did EDI kill anyone on the Normandy? Did that AI on the Citadel ever mention that it had the urge to see every organic cell in the universe wither and die?

Again: Why should synthetics kill every living being? If they don't feel threatened by it, they'd much rather study it. And if they don't want to study it, they'll ignore it. A VI might argue that a primitive organism could evolve into a threat in a matter of million years and want to eliminate it preemptively. But an AI that is self-aware and doesn't solely rely on math is bit smarter than that, and probably more curious.


So, your argumentation is good, kudos for that, but the underlying idea that the whole argumentation is based on makes no sense which, again, is evidence of poor writing and things not being thought through properly.
If what I've heard is true and we have Casey and Mac to thank for this, and Casey really is the analytic type, I wonder how he could overlook this.

Well, here's hoping they will give us something better soon.

Probably the race, that created the catalyst, was wiped out by synthetics they created. Does that mean the Catalyst assumes that every race will repeat the mistake?

[Kuari999]

dointime85 wrote...

terdferguson123 wrote...

Kuari999 wrote...

When you destroy all that makes organic life what it is in order to save it? Yeah, that's flawed and circular logic. This isn't a matter of opinion.

I hate using wiki for this but:
http://en.wikipedia....cular_reasoning

Its the EXACT definition of it. I'm sorry, but that sort of logic never works, so while I don't mind the catalyst having crappy logic like that, I sure as hell don't want my Shepard agreeing with it.

No, it isn't, because your presuming to know what "All that makes organic life what it is" All that organic life is, is carbon based life (while, in science it's not confirmed if life on other planets would be carbon based it is VERY much believed that it would be). If they are preventing the destruction of carbon based life in any way, then it is not circular logic.

Also, the catalyst believes that it manages to preserve organic life in reaper form: To us, that doesn't make sense at all because the building of a reaper through dna-soup does not preserve all the emotions, values and dynamics that make organic life precious. Therefore, to him the destroy organic life to protect organic life translates to extract and preserve organic life to enable new organic life to develop which isn't circular anymore, though - again - horribly flawed.

This exactly...  I refer you to the words of Mordin:

[Evil Minion]

Opsrbest wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Opsrbest wrote...

terdferguson123 wrote...

omntt wrote...

Op i'm sorry but i have to say that after 5 pages i still find the starchild to be either a liar or a retard...

It's an AI that had created a solution with no regard whatsoever to morals, it cannot be a "retard" (why use that word anyways, sais a lot about you, sorry to be judgemental but well there it is). I said it in the OP, you cannot expect to understand it's purpose when looking at it from a moral perspective.

It's not an AI though. An AI has the capacity to exceed itself beyond the original goal. The only way to expain the Catalyst to have existance without any form of AI adaptation to any of the information it would have had or plausible outcomes would be if it didn't exist at all until the Crusable. And when the Catalyst states "I control the Reapers" it says that isn't possible. A VI on the other hand would function in a similar manner as an AI but without the capacity for change. The possibilites it gives are too finite for an AI and it doesn't consider the fact that the Catalyst and it's Reapers have been influencing organic life X number of cycles.

It's premise and logic are wrong and an AI would adapt to that. The means of using synthetic life created by two cycles in order to defeat those cycles and using indoctrination to succeed the point of conflict add to that. It's not adaptive thinking. It's linear thinking.

That's not what AI are. AI are just artifical inteligence. They are just self aware machines. It does no tmean they have to over come their orginal perpuse.

AI is more then just a self aware machine. The Catalyst asks you in the game to belive that it is right under every circumstance regardless of possibility. If all an AI is a machine that is aware that it exists then the issue or threat of creator vs created conflict can not possibly exist since the understanding of what they are as AI remains finite.

AI has the capacity to evolve into a form of it's own thinking structures. VI is linear in it's thinking structures. The deviation of X will always occur in Y result may be true and both an AI and VI will reach that same conclusion. But an AI will add a third vlaue to the equation to allow for growth.

Unless the AI "develops" into a little GhostKid Adolph Hitler-wanna-be.....

[lillitheris]

Sunnyhat1 wrote...

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

It is impossible to compute the probability of an event which has never happened.

So when they had the very first lottery they couldn't determine the odds of winning because nobody hit the jackpot yet?

As much as i'd love to agree with the rest of your post. Errm yeah ..no. Sorry.

You can compute the probability of any event. It's just a question of information.

In order to have sufficient information to make the probability in any way reasonable, it would need to have enough information that it could just as well predict when, how, and where it will happen. Then it could simply destroy the offending synthetics.

So no, it's not a probability. You can argue that it's simply been given the instruction.

...

It's just rationalization. The truth is that anything intelligent enough to create what seems to be at least a very complex program would not have implemented such logic.

Anyway, it doesn't even matter. Regardless of what the Catalyst's logic is, the fundamental problem is that Shepard just accepts it.

Modifié par lillitheris, 24 mars 2012 - 09:44 .

[fropas]

dointime85 wrote...

fropas wrote...

Sunnyhat1 wrote...

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

It is impossible to compute the probability of an event which has never happened.

So when they had the very first lottery they couldn't determine the odds of winning because nobody hit the jackpot yet?

As much as i'd love to agree with the rest of your post. Errm yeah ..no. Sorry.

You can compute the probability of any event. It's just a question of information.

How can you calculate the odds of a lottery without knowing how many people are buying tickets? Until that happens they wouldn't really be able to accurately assume the probability that someone would win.

No, it only depends on the number of possible combinations. The number of ticket-buyers only determines how likely it is that a certain number of people get the right number.

if you say so. . .I don't think you're right though. If more people enter a lottery the likely-hood that someone will win will inevitably increase.

[YeGodz]

"Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an ‘intelligence explosion,’ and the intelligence of man would be left far behind."

-I.J. Good

The Catalyst/Starchild is the final iteration of an explosive superintelligence. It was designed by machines, who were themselves designed by machines (or it was a single AI that progressively upgraded itself until it bore no resemblance to its original programing. And when it asked those Geth/EDI type questions "why am I here? What is my purpose?" it was asking them into a vacuum.

[dointime85]

Kuari999 wrote...

dointime85 wrote...

terdferguson123 wrote...

Kuari999 wrote...

When you destroy all that makes organic life what it is in order to save it? Yeah, that's flawed and circular logic. This isn't a matter of opinion.

I hate using wiki for this but:
http://en.wikipedia....cular_reasoning

Its the EXACT definition of it. I'm sorry, but that sort of logic never works, so while I don't mind the catalyst having crappy logic like that, I sure as hell don't want my Shepard agreeing with it.

No, it isn't, because your presuming to know what "All that makes organic life what it is" All that organic life is, is carbon based life (while, in science it's not confirmed if life on other planets would be carbon based it is VERY much believed that it would be). If they are preventing the destruction of carbon based life in any way, then it is not circular logic.

Also, the catalyst believes that it manages to preserve organic life in reaper form: To us, that doesn't make sense at all because the building of a reaper through dna-soup does not preserve all the emotions, values and dynamics that make organic life precious. Therefore, to him the destroy organic life to protect organic life translates to extract and preserve organic life to enable new organic life to develop which isn't circular anymore, though - again - horribly flawed.

This exactly...  I refer you to the words of Mordin:

Thanks for posting this, that's exactly what I meant, coming from a true expert! :happy:

[Teacher50]

Wow another one with a theory...

An excerpt from a post I made at Forbes:

"Rationalizations to make the ending work abound and are just wrong however well portrayed or conceived."

[terdferguson123]

Meltemph wrote...

Mighty_BOB_cnc wrote...

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

We argued a bit before, and other people in the thread are picking your argument apart, but this point I want to address again because nobody is doing a good job of tackling it.

terdferguson123 wrote...

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.

It is impossible to compute the probability of an event which has never happened.

We know with certainty that synthetics have never wiped out all organic life, because organic life still exists. There is no way to know what the chance of a singularity wiping out all organic life is, because it has never happened.

If your assumption that the Catalyst only understands mathematics is true, then it is incapable of even conceiving of this situation on its own.

Also, it is believed that the Reapers and the boy are synthetics. Some people disagree about whether they really are or not, but let's assume for a moment that they are, and the Catalyst isn't lying about the purpose of the Reapers. This means that somebody created the Reapers. If the Catalyst created them, then somebody created the Catalyst to prevent the elimination of all organic life. If someone programmed the Catalyst to assume that synthetics will eventually destroy organics completely, then this would explain why it thinks that. But it's still wrong because the destruction of all organic life has never happened.

This post is winning.

His point will go ignored...trust me. Nobody cares apparently about this point, except a few.  People would rather talk about the choices and what not and ignore the glaring problem that the ending just doesnt make sense.  People are willing to fill the void of nothingness in order to justify their experience or lack there of.

I already addressed it and I am not ignoring it. Let me restate it. His post, while well reasoned, does not have enough information, because it implies that organic life hasn't been wiped off the face of the galaxy before. There is no way to tell, becuase over time life can recreate itself: see this wikipedia post on the Miller-Urey experiment. http://en.wikipedia....rey_experiment.

The point is, that him saying it hasn't happened, is presumptios given how radical the Catalyst is about this. It's quite blatantly obvious it has happened considering it's goal.

Modifié par terdferguson123, 24 mars 2012 - 09:47 .

[terdferguson123]

Teacher50 wrote...

Wow another one with a theory...

An excerpt from a post I made at Forbes:

"Rationalizations to make the ending work abound and are just wrong however well portrayed or conceived."

What is theoretical about this? I am only trying to explain the way a machine would think about reaching its goal (via mathematics) it's not like the indoc or hallucination theory, did you even read the post?

[dointime85]

fropas wrote...

dointime85 wrote...

fropas wrote...

Sunnyhat1 wrote...

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

It is impossible to compute the probability of an event which has never happened.

So when they had the very first lottery they couldn't determine the odds of winning because nobody hit the jackpot yet?

As much as i'd love to agree with the rest of your post. Errm yeah ..no. Sorry.

You can compute the probability of any event. It's just a question of information.

How can you calculate the odds of a lottery without knowing how many people are buying tickets? Until that happens they wouldn't really be able to accurately assume the probability that someone would win.

No, it only depends on the number of possible combinations. The number of ticket-buyers only determines how likely it is that a certain number of people get the right number.

if you say so. . .I don't think you're right though. If more people enter a lottery the likely-hood that someone will win will inevitably increase.

Yes that someone will win, that's true. For the individual ticket buyer, the chance to win stays the same. Maybe I misunderstood you, sorry.

Modifié par dointime85, 24 mars 2012 - 09:46 .

[Sunnyhat1]

fropas wrote...

Sunnyhat1 wrote...

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

It is impossible to compute the probability of an event which has never happened.

So when they had the very first lottery they couldn't determine the odds of winning because nobody hit the jackpot yet?

As much as i'd love to agree with the rest of your post. Errm yeah ..no. Sorry.

You can compute the probability of any event. It's just a question of information.

How can you calculate the odds of a lottery without knowing how many people are buying tickets? Until that happens they wouldn't really be able to accurately assume the probability that someone would win.

The odds of drawing 6 certain numbers out of 49 is always the same.
So you always have the base right there.
Of course to know if the lottery will be won you need the number of participants. That's the information.
But to say it is impossible to calculate just because it never happened is wrong. You could calcualte the odds of a cracked jackpot for ANY number of participants.

[Meltemph]

terdferguson123 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Mighty_BOB_cnc wrote...

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

We argued a bit before, and other people in the thread are picking your argument apart, but this point I want to address again because nobody is doing a good job of tackling it.

terdferguson123 wrote...

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.

It is impossible to compute the probability of an event which has never happened.

We know with certainty that synthetics have never wiped out all organic life, because organic life still exists. There is no way to know what the chance of a singularity wiping out all organic life is, because it has never happened.

If your assumption that the Catalyst only understands mathematics is true, then it is incapable of even conceiving of this situation on its own.

Also, it is believed that the Reapers and the boy are synthetics. Some people disagree about whether they really are or not, but let's assume for a moment that they are, and the Catalyst isn't lying about the purpose of the Reapers. This means that somebody created the Reapers. If the Catalyst created them, then somebody created the Catalyst to prevent the elimination of all organic life. If someone programmed the Catalyst to assume that synthetics will eventually destroy organics completely, then this would explain why it thinks that. But it's still wrong because the destruction of all organic life has never happened.

This post is winning.

His point will go ignored...trust me. Nobody cares apparently about this point, except a few.  People would rather talk about the choices and what not and ignore the glaring problem that the ending just doesnt make sense.  People are willing to fill the void of nothingness in order to justify their experience or lack there of.

I already addressed it and I am not ignoring it. Let me restate it. His post, while well reasoned, does not have enough information, because it implies that organic life hasn't been wiped off the face of the galaxy before. There is no way to tell, becuase over time life can recreate itself: see this wikipedia post on the Miller-Urey experiment. http://en.wikipedia....rey_experiment.

The point is, that him saying it has happened, is presumptios given how radical the Catalyst is about this. It's quite blatantly obvious it has happened considering it's goal.

So it's obvious cause it says so. Ya... To each their own.

[lillitheris]

terdferguson123 wrote...

I already addressed it and I am not ignoring it. Let me restate it. His post, while well reasoned, does not have enough information, because it implies that organic life hasn't been wiped off the face of the galaxy before. There is no way to tell, becuase over time life can recreate itself: see this wikipedia post on the Miller-Urey experiment. http://en.wikipedia....rey_experiment.

The point is, that him saying it has happened, is presumptios given how radical the Catalyst is about this. It's quite blatantly obvious it has happened considering it's goal.

If organic life can revive itself, or be reborn entirely, then there is no problem for the Catalyst to solve. I'm not quite sure what you're arguing.

[Evil Minion]

defenestrated wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

Agreed.

I don't mind ambiguous endings, but I don't think they "work" in video games.

Most people who pay $60.00 want some definitive closure.

I think ambiguous endings are like just about any other type of ending, in that how well they works depends on they fit with the rest of the story. Ambiguous endings, unreliable narrators, etc - it all comes down to how well the rest of the story supports it.

Given how "unknowable" the Reapers were presented as in three games, I'd have actually been okay with never really understanding the cycle. It would have been a creepy mystery. The explanation left a lot to be desired.

Agreed.

I didn't really mind Ghostkid, but he creates more problems than he solves.

I'm still "okay" with the endings, but they could stand serious tweaking.

[Tony208]

We're not confused, we just don't want to accept it and Shepard never would either. But he did, end of story, bad ending.