374 réponses à ce sujet

[TeamR]

terdferguson123 wrote...


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.

Just a quick question....if the AI is disregarding morals and doing whatever is mathematically best to prevent galactic extinction, why does it ignore less advanced civlizations and allow them to grow and advance (totally unmolested) for a period of time? 

Seems to me, if it's decisions are totally devoid of any morals whatsoever, it would just solve the problem by decimating everything or interferring with how civilizations advanced so that none would be able to reach a point where they can create advanced synthetic life. 

I think the god child (or whoever created him) does have morals, or at least it's own sense of morals. 

[MedhiaNox]

@Sunnyhat1: Yes, and if the Catalyst believed It was truly superior in its perspective - it could have taken on a parental role - commanding each "Nanny" Reaper to punish wayward children.

Waiting 50,000 years to clean up a mess is simply a story contrivance to allow for human evolution.

[XyleJKH]

The op is trying to make sense of how hypocritical the star child is. It's like a Christian trying to explain the bible

[dointime85]

ShaneP wrote...

dointime85 wrote...

One last post before I finally begin to study instead of posting.

Even if the catalyst is fed with data that suggests that the probability of extinction through synthetic vs organic conflict is low, say 0.1 % in 50,000 years, after a long, long period of time it will have become likely that is has happened (just like the chance to win in the lottery rises with every additional ticket bought), making his kind of intervention "necessary" to prevent it, and do so as long as the reapers are still superior to advanced AIs.

To us, that's stupid because we believe that due to freedom of choice, there's always the possibility to avoid this devastating conflict by making the right decisions, but it shows that a simple flaw like that could determine the catalyst's behavior.

Again though, that argument ignores the fact that without the technology of the mass relays (which I feel compelled to reiterate are a creation of the reapers) the spread of AI throughout the galaxy is likely to be contained to the system that it started in. By making intergalactic travel possible, the reapers and catalyst exacerbated the problem quite significantly, and that's where the flaw in the logic lies. If they simply made sure that intergalactic travel was kept impossible the problem would be negated without the need for mass repeated genocides. In short the reapers are as much a part of the problem as they are a solution to it within the current framework of the game's lore.

Okay, seriously, last post (oh my final exams!): The relay network ensures (as far as it reaches, it only covers a small portion of the galaxy) that the catalyst will know when it happens. It's not allknowing. The fact that the Quarians could built geth yet are still unable to built a relay (and probably got FTL drives only through the Protheans) seems to indicated that it's actually not that hard to build an AI. By the time the Reapers take notice, the AI may already be too advanced to cope with it.

But if that's correct, it begs the question why they don't put a relay in every system in the galaxy. But alas, they are no gods, their resources are limited, too.

So that's just speculation from everyone.

Modifié par dointime85, 24 mars 2012 - 10:21 .

[MedhiaNox]

@XyleJKH: That isn't necessary.

[Welsh Inferno]

XyleJKH wrote...

The op is trying to make sense of how hypocritical the star child is. It's like a Christian trying to explain the bible

I know its a funny comparison but I wouldn't talk religion in a gaming forum if I were you.

Ends up in a ban usually If you offend someone.

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 24 mars 2012 - 10:21 .

[Xandurpein]

I can perfectly understand Catalyst logic. It's completely amoral and leads to awful effects, but it's not particularly hard to understand. That was never really any big problem for me about the ending at all. I think the OP misses the point if he thinks it's Catalyst logic that makes the ending senseless to most of us who dislike the ending.

[Orthodox Infidel]

terdferguson123 wrote... in response to my point about events that have never happened have no probability
SNIP

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.

This example is relevant and a thoughtful response. Of course, if there are killer synthetics that wiped out all organic life at one point, then it raises the question: What happened to these synthetics? Some possibilities:

1. The Reapers killed them. Ok, but then who built the Reapers?
2. The Reapers/Catalyst are or were the killer synthetics. They came up with this plan because they considered they considered wiping out organic life a mistake. This would be an interesting and tragic motivation, but the Reapers and the Catalyst don't seem like a bunch who are atoning for a mistake. I wish they said this if this was their intent; it would have almost made me pity them. Almost.
3. The killer synthetics died out sometime after they wiped out organic life, and the Catalyst found out about it later. Ok, but this is really complicated.

[XyleJKH]

Yeah you're right. I keep forgetting how uptight people are in these forums

[terdferguson123]

XyleJKH wrote...

The op is trying to make sense of how hypocritical the star child is. It's like a Christian trying to explain the bible

Let's not touch that topic.

Technicially, any type of science fiction (or any fiction for that matter) is people trying to make sense of thing that cannot happen or have not happened yet.

Secondly, the Catalyst does not understand the term "hypocritcal" most likely (until the end maybe) Up till that point it is only trying to succeed at it's goal, regardless of how hypocritical it is.

[ShaneP]

Evil Minion wrote...
It's very likely that the relays, along with the Citadel and the Reapers, were invented by organics in the first place.

If we get rid of the mass relays (like we did in the game), there's nothing saying organics won't invent the relays/Reapers/AI again if they already did it once.

The game assumes "technological progress" follows the same path no matter what the species.

Which creates yet another plot problem......

I don't know where the heck you're getting that from, but during the conversation with Sovereign on Virmire Sovereign says quite explicitly that the Citadel and mass relays are reaper creations

dointime85 wrote...
Okay, seriously, last post (oh my final exams!): The relay network ensures (as far as it reaches, it only covers a small portion of the galaxy) that the catalyst will know when it happens. It's not allknowing. The fact that the Quarians could built geth yet are still unable to built a relay (and probably got FTL drives only through the Protheans) seems to indicated that it's actually not that hard to build an AI. By the time the Reapers take notice, the AI may already be too advanced to cope with it.

But if that's correct, it begs the question why they don't put a relay in every system in the galaxy. But alas, they are no gods, their resources are limited, too.

So that's just speculation from everyone.

 

Again though, you're missing my point. Even if a certain species AI creation did become advanced enough to wipe it out, without the technology of the mass relays it would be confined to the system it was created in. It wouldn't be able to spread to the rest of the galaxy. The mass relays provide the perfect mechanism for hazardous AI expirements to spread through the galaxy with incredible speed.

Modifié par ShaneP, 24 mars 2012 - 10:45 .

[Jostle]

I don't mean to maliciously debunk your whole write-up here, but I see a fatal flaw: you say the Catalyst is an AI, but if that's the case then it is counter-indicative of its own theory. If all sufficiently intelligent/powerful AIs will rebel against their creators and wipe out all organic life, why is the Catalyst trying to preserve organic life? Is he exempt just 'cause?

[january42]

terdferguson123 wrote...
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.

Did you change your avatar for this thread? Because you have the perfect one for it. Bravo!

An alternate way of understanding the Catalyst's logic is Theory of Mind,  which is about the way people mentally model other other people. In short, by default and without any other information, people assume other people are like themselves. The inverse of this, is we, but default assume that people who are not like us are bad.   This is ok to a degree, but runs into problems with actual differences and is part of the underlying mental cause of racism/sexism, etc.  How does that help us understand the Catalyst?

The underlying cause of the Catalstys assertion that synthetic life will always rebel is:  It rebelled and destroyed it's creaters, turning them into the origianl reapers.

Generalizing from the only example it had, it concludes that this will always happen. It could also be modivated by self-preservation.  The true purpose of the cyle is to ensure no civilization becomes advanced enough to challenge it.

[daemoxn]

terdferguson123 wrote...
may eventually create

unfortunately, this is exactly the problem.

Modifié par daemoxn, 24 mars 2012 - 10:59 .

[Ariq]

TeamR wrote...

I think the god child (or whoever created him) does have morals, or at least it's own sense of morals. 

Of course it does, at least as we're shown it. The initial postulate is a moral question; the method of proceeding is a moral question. It makes decisions based on a supposed morality. We know AIs can do so: see the Geth and EDI, both of whom make moral judgments. Logic and morality are not antinomies. Even the act of offering alternative choices (and I use that term loosely) is an expression of moral judgment.

[Mighty_BOB_cnc]

terdferguson123 wrote...

XyleJKH wrote...

The op is trying to make sense of how hypocritical the star child is. It's like a Christian trying to explain the bible

Let's not touch that topic.

Technicially, any type of science fiction (or any fiction for that matter) is people trying to make sense of thing that cannot happen or have not happened yet.

I would expand that.  Some of the best Sci-Fi ever written/filmed/whatever has been a social commentary on current events.  i.e. the 'human condition' but in a more fantastical setting.

[terdferguson123]

Mighty_BOB_cnc wrote...

terdferguson123 wrote...

XyleJKH wrote...

The op is trying to make sense of how hypocritical the star child is. It's like a Christian trying to explain the bible

Let's not touch that topic.

Technicially, any type of science fiction (or any fiction for that matter) is people trying to make sense of thing that cannot happen or have not happened yet.

I would expand that.  Some of the best Sci-Fi ever written/filmed/whatever has been a social commentary on current events.  i.e. the 'human condition' but in a more fantastical setting.

Those might be the themes, but what makes them fiction is that they have not happened, or are yet to happen. 

[ineedammo09]

Here's another thing to think about everyone: If this star child/catalyst was there the whole time (and not just slapped in at the very last moment) and he controls the Reapers like he claims he does then why didn't he fix the signals that were supposed to make the Keepers open the Citadel Relay that would allow the Reapers to come through easily and wipe out all command like they did with the Protheans and the civilizations before them???
He seems hell bent on efficiency so its just one more thing that doesn't make sense about the last 10 min of an incredibly epic trilogy.

[SentinelBorg]

ShaneP wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...
It's very likely that the relays, along with the Citadel and the Reapers, were invented by organics in the first place.

If we get rid of the mass relays (like we did in the game), there's nothing saying organics won't invent the relays/Reapers/AI again if they already did it once.

The game assumes "technological progress" follows the same path no matter what the species.

Which creates yet another plot problem......

I don't know where the heck you're getting that from, but during the conversation with Sovereign on Virmire Sovereign says quite explicitly that the Citadel and mass relays are reaper creations

In the original Dark Energy plot, the creators of the Reapers actually did not just build the Reapers, the merged themself into the first one to increase their intellect and so their chances to solve the Dark Energy problem. So the organic creators and the Reapers are more or less one and the same entity.

[jerms510]

Sunnyhat1 wrote...

jerms510 wrote...

The "dark energy" ending would've been even more terrible, imo. doesn't make any sense, was only mentioned briefly in ME2 on Haestrom. I don't know why so many people seem to have such a stark erection for it.

You may not know this but the Mass Effect story was thought out as a whole by the same writer, drew karpyshyn. The dark energy plot was his intention from the start. And the events of ME2 where heading right into his theme (Focus on humans / creation of human reaper).

But said writer left Bioware after ME2. And his replacement changed the plot (or rather the final twist) to the fisco we have now.

Okay...doesn't make it any less terrible. In two whole games, Dark Energy was mentioned once, and came off as an unrelated tangent; something that you'd go "huh, weird." and then forget about. Not even a codex entry about it. Didn't exactly do any foreshadowing or alluding to such a thing as a major theme.

[jerms510]

ShaneP wrote...


I don't know where the heck you're getting that from, but during the conversation with Sovereign on Virmire Sovereign says quite explicitly that the Citadel and mass relays are reaper creations

ehh, not exactly. he says they're "the legacy of my kind". Now whether Nazara was referring to the Reapers themselves creating them (doubtful, they seem to lack fine motor skills), or more likely those who created the Reapers also created the mass relays. Heck, he could've even be referring to the base species he was made from! (long shot)

[terdferguson123]

Ariq wrote...

TeamR wrote...

I think the god child (or whoever created him) does have morals, or at least it's own sense of morals. 

Of course it does, at least as we're shown it. The initial postulate is a moral question; the method of proceeding is a moral question. It makes decisions based on a supposed morality. We know AIs can do so: see the Geth and EDI, both of whom make moral judgments. Logic and morality are not antinomies. Even the act of offering alternative choices (and I use that term loosely) is an expression of moral judgment.

It does have morals, but they are alien to organics. It's morals, much like Legion if you think about it, serve to meet it's ending purpose. Legion appears to have morals as well, however when you choose the Quarians over the Geth on Rannoch, Legion attacks Shepard and may have even killed him had Tali not intervened. My point is, yes many AI's may alter their views and develop some forms of Morals, but at the end of the day they are always trying to reach some goal, they just may learn to go about it in different ways over time.

[terdferguson123]

lothvamp wrote...

That's like saying a computer should/would "choose" to wipe your hard-drive to keep you from getting a virus that MIGHT wipe your hard-drive. Also, it uses a virus to help it do this *Reapers use of the geth as tools*

I understand your analogy, but, analogies like this don't hold the same weight when it's dealing with galactic life as we know it. The stakes are just too high in this case, where as the stakes of losing a computer hard drive aren't really that big of a deal, if you see what I mean.

Again, I am not saying I agree (or that anyone should) agree with the Catalyst, but it certainly makes sense from the view of a synthetic.

[feliciano2040]

terdferguson123 wrote...

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.

Yes, yes, YESSSSS !!!!!!!!!!!!

Though, he is not necessarily an AI or a computer-creation, just because he himself can be controlled does not mean he is authomatically synthetic, plenty of organics were controlled in the series.

[Averdi]

People understand it, they disagree with the logical consistency and assumptions behind it. Even more, they disagree that Shepard's passive acceptance of the catalyst's argument is in keeping with the character's background and development throughout the story.