695 réponses à ce sujet

[Lugaidster]

sydranark wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

That's a pretty bad analogy. For once, the reapers aren't killing you, not in their eyes. 

 

Yes they are. They are eliminating you as a threat to other primitive lifeforms.

Again, that's you assumption.

sydranark wrote... 

Lugaidster wrote... 
You are regarding the reasoning as dumb from your eyes, but you are not checking the reasoning itself, you're checking the premises. The premises might be dumb, but the reasoning is not. You can make a valid conclusion from a false premise 

Did you mean you can make a valid argument from false premises? Yes; however, you can't make a sound argument. Soundness requires 2 things: validity, and all premises are true. 

P1 (False):
All advanced civilizations make synthetics
P2 (False):
All synthetics kill all life
C (False):
All advanced civilizations kill all life

This argument is technically valid, but both of its premises and conclusion are false. Therefore, the logic isn't sound. Therefore, the logic is dumb. =/

They are arguable, not false. Are you seriously going to say that both of the premises are irrefutably false? While I don't agree with the Catalyst solution completely, the premises are at worst debatable, not blatantly false. As such, the reasoning is debatably sound, but irrefutably valid. Furthermore, dumb logic is equivalent to invalid logic, not unsound logic.

Modifié par Lugaidster, 26 mars 2012 - 05:46 .

[huntsman2310]

Yes but the problem is that the Catalyst is forcing Organic evolution down a singular path.

Thats evolutionary suicide basically.

[Tov01]

I would like to point out that since this is the logic of the bad guys, it shouldn't surprise us that it is morally indefensible.

[Lugaidster]

Huami wrote...

the solution is never violence, the solution is always peace and harmony, it's really easy... c'mon... all you gotta do is eat, sleep, drink, ****, ******, and expand existence through knowledge and intelligence. Why in the Hell would synthetics kill all organic life if they've achieved the awareness level of organics? They should be living Like Organics... with rules and morals and modes of conduct to live peacefully and harmoniously with all other species - the capability to adapt and reassess their decision making just like how edi changed her value for joker's life above her own and any other crew member besides shepard...

If they've (the ai) surpassed the awareness level of any organic life form, then they should be able to present solutions to even the most difficult problems of organics... not genocide... that's the least enlightened and dumbest solution of all...

Yeah, because organics don't kill organics? C'mon. If anything, I'd hope that they had better moral values. But then again...

[SimKoning]

Tov01 wrote...

I would like to point out that since this is the logic of the bad guys, it shouldn't surprise us that it is morally indefensible.

Bad guys that make a habit of brainwashing organics into thinking they are "gods" no less.

[Lugaidster]

huntsman2310 wrote...

Yes but the problem is that the Catalyst is forcing Organic evolution down a singular path.

Thats evolutionary suicide basically.

Yeah, they don't want you to prosper. And are accomplishing that the best way they can.

[Huami]

ultimately the story wasn't well thought of... and only reveals the limits of it's creators... we can talk all we want, but at the end of the day, we can all agree that it pretty much looks like one of those tales we'd use to come up and talk about as children - where we'd have fantasy role playing and make up stories, solutions, and plot lines along the way as we progressed through our narration... you guys ever played that? pew pew laser beam! bam, super laser beam shield! 

Modifié par Huami, 26 mars 2012 - 05:53 .

[Lugaidster]

Huami wrote...

ultimately the story wasn't well thought of... and only reveals the limits of it's creators... we can talk all we want, but at the end of the day, we can all agree that it pretty much looks like one of those tales we'd use to come up and talk about as children - where we'd have fantasy role playing and make up stories, solutions, and plot lines along the way as we progressed through our narration... you guys ever played that? pew pew laser beam! bam, super laser beam shield! 

I think that is true in the sense that it wasn't well presented to the player. The catalyst's motives (technological singularity) are a hotly debated theme in the AI research field. I don't think it's something just made up. I hold them accountable for the execution, but I don't think it's a stupid theme. 

[SmokePants]

Draconis6666 wrote...

The problem is that its a rediculous solution anyway, if the purpose is to preserve organic life you should cull all synthetic life not the other way around, so your right its not circular logic, its not even logic its just blatant stupidity.

It's not illogical.

Resetting technological progress is a key component of the strategy. If organics are allowed to progress indefinitely, they will eventually close the gap between themselves and the Reapers. Any synthetics created by such a society would effectively be the Reapers II and wouldn't be so easily culled.

Furthermore, any culled synthetics can be rebuilt in short order. After all, what's the incentive NOT to experiment with AI? The Reapers will come bail us out if we get in trouble!

And they won't ever have the element of surprise, because we will have seen them come and go, countless times. Cleaning up our spilled milk.

They don't feel sentiment or pity. They're like mobsters who don't like to leave loose ends laying around, and shoot not just their target, but the witnesses too.

[Huami]

Lugaidster wrote...

Huami wrote...

the solution is never violence, the solution is always peace and harmony, it's really easy... c'mon... all you gotta do is eat, sleep, drink, ****, ******, and expand existence through knowledge and intelligence. Why in the Hell would synthetics kill all organic life if they've achieved the awareness level of organics? They should be living Like Organics... with rules and morals and modes of conduct to live peacefully and harmoniously with all other species - the capability to adapt and reassess their decision making just like how edi changed her value for joker's life above her own and any other crew member besides shepard...

If they've (the ai) surpassed the awareness level of any organic life form, then they should be able to present solutions to even the most difficult problems of organics... not genocide... that's the least enlightened and dumbest solution of all...

Yeah, because organics don't kill organics? C'mon. If anything, I'd hope that they had better moral values. But then again...

of course there are conflicts, and that's what makes a superior intelligence vastly different from an inferior one - how the superior will cultivate peace and harmony despite the differences, "kill everything" is an immature, selfish and very childish response. And also the Easiest way out. Humanity would not have survived up to this point in time if not for the desire for co-existence, peace, harmony, and reason between and within nations and cultures.

[Lugaidster]

doodiebody wrote...

Well, my point isn't that his views couldn't eventually turn out to be true.  He presents his case as if it's an inevitability that he's seen before, which is obviously not true.  So he has no evidence at all to base his claims on.

How do you know that? His premises are arguable, true, but there's no proof to go on either side. You don't know if it's inevitable and you don't know if he's seen it before either. At this point all assumptions on their past are valid, to blatantly negate without evidence either possibility is being narrowminded.

[sydranark]

Lugaidster wrote...

sydranark wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

That's a pretty bad analogy. For once, the reapers aren't killing you, not in their eyes. 

 

Yes they are. They are eliminating you as a threat to other primitive lifeforms.

Again, that's you assumption.

 

Backed by evidence of them.. uh... killing? What else would you call their actions? Even if they don't think they are killing people "in their eyes," and they say they are saving the galaxy, by what means are they doing so? They are taking certain actions: harvesting humans, destroying cities, shooting their lasers at people. In essence, it is killing, regardless of what they perceive it as. 

Lugaidster wrote... 

sydranark wrote... 

Lugaidster wrote... 
You are regarding the reasoning as dumb from your eyes, but you are not checking the reasoning itself, you're checking the premises. The premises might be dumb, but the reasoning is not. You can make a valid conclusion from a false premise 

Did you mean you can make a valid argument from false premises? Yes; however, you can't make a sound argument. Soundness requires 2 things: validity, and all premises are true. 

P1 (False):
All advanced civilizations make synthetics
P2 (False):
All synthetics kill all life
C (False):
All advanced civilizations kill all life

This argument is technically valid, but both of its premises and conclusion are false. Therefore, the logic isn't sound. Therefore, the logic is dumb. =/

They are arguable, not false. Are you seriously going to say that both of the premises are irrefutably false? While I don't agree with the Catalyst solution completely, the premises are at worst debatable, not blatantly false. As such, the reasoning is debatably sound, but irrefutably valid. Furthermore, dumb logic is equivalent to invalid logic, not unsound logic.

Yes, to use the word "All" would make both claims false. Maybe P1 is refutable, but not all Synthetics kill all life. Plus in order for an argument to be sound, all premises need to be true. So, soundness isn't debatable, te argument simply is not. It is irrefutably valid, I agree with you there, but it sure as hell is not sound. 

Also dude, dumb logic is equivalent to unsound logic. =/ Soundness is how well an argument holds truth. An argument with a bunch of untrue premises may be valid, but it is definitely false. If someone tried to argue to you that 2+2 = 3, whatever premises he presents to create a valid aregument holds no weight. The very fact that this guy is arguing with false premises makes his argument dumb, simply because it is incorrect, and creating a conclusion out of a load of crap. 

[Cazlee]

Smokepants, I really enjoyed reading your view. I never even thought that future civilizations may actually want to build reapers. Now I'm curious about the origin of the reapers.

[Lugaidster]

Huami wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

Huami wrote...

the solution is never violence, the solution is always peace and harmony, it's really easy... c'mon... all you gotta do is eat, sleep, drink, ****, ******, and expand existence through knowledge and intelligence. Why in the Hell would synthetics kill all organic life if they've achieved the awareness level of organics? They should be living Like Organics... with rules and morals and modes of conduct to live peacefully and harmoniously with all other species - the capability to adapt and reassess their decision making just like how edi changed her value for joker's life above her own and any other crew member besides shepard...

If they've (the ai) surpassed the awareness level of any organic life form, then they should be able to present solutions to even the most difficult problems of organics... not genocide... that's the least enlightened and dumbest solution of all...

Yeah, because organics don't kill organics? C'mon. If anything, I'd hope that they had better moral values. But then again...

of course there are conflicts, and that's what makes a superior intelligence vastly different from an inferior one - how the superior will cultivate peace and harmony despite the differences, "kill everything" is an immature, selfish and very childish response. And also the Easiest way out. Humanity would not have survived up to this point in time if not for the desire for co-existence, peace, harmony, and reason between and within nations and cultures.

That's a subjective appreciation. You are assuming that the AI would hold our own principles. Not even all humans hold those values as important. 

PS: Not every human had a desire for co-existence, peace, harmony and reason. WW2 reminds me of the last attempt, and it's fairly recent. Hitler certainly had no intention on living with "lesser" races alongside him as equals.

[Sprinfoot]

This would have worked much better given the Starchild's supposed goal of trying to prevent synthetic AI from destroying all organics. What we're given is some half-baked logic a poor writer came up with at the last minute to try and give us a 'deep, surprising twist ending'. A simple explanation of the Reapers simply seeking to survive by harvesting organics to keep themselves from becoming too homogeneous would have worked fine.

Better yet, no explanation - a killer broke into your home, why do you have to discover his motives to protect you and your family?

JulienJaden wrote...

It may be oversimplifying it but it is sufficiently accurate in describing the ridiculous nature of the "solution". If the Reapers simply were there, all the time, as watchful guardians nobody can communicate with that go and eliminate any self-aware synthetic and the race that invents them, that would be an explanation one could use.

But they hide for 50.000 years at a time, then come back and kill every advanced race. It's stupid. It is a stupid explanation. Reproduction, self-preservation or something like that would have made SO MUCH MORE sense because that would make Sovereign's statement of them being "incomprehensible" sound like arrogance (which, one could argue, can come with self-awareness and, well, wiping species from the face of the galaxy for a couple million years). As it stands, it makes his statement sound like utter stupidity because the Catalyst explains it in one sentence and it is comprehensible, it just doesn't make any sense, neither for an organic, nor in terms of efficiency (which, I guess, is what a machine would go for).

Modifié par Sprinfoot, 26 mars 2012 - 06:07 .

[Huami]

here's a video, that I believe, destroys the validity of imaginative creation of bioware on the proposed reaper solution, and evidence that it is not well thought of




the most advanced civilization should have turned away from barbaric violence and are uplifted to the highest level of purpose for existence.

Modifié par Huami, 26 mars 2012 - 06:12 .

[Xandurpein]

The Reapers do, for reasons we don't know, see it as their task to preserve organic life in the Galaxy. They believe that synthetic life will turn upon their creators and kill them. This is just conjecture, but maybe they themselves at some point have been at war with their creators and killed them, and somehow regret that, so to make up for this they want to avoid this happening again.

The fundamental nature of the Reapers are to preserve Order, over Chaos. This leaves the Reapers with a conflict of interest. They want to preserve organic life and order, but evolution and change, which they see as chaos, is an integral part of organic life. So their solution is to limit evolution by "resetting" it at regular intervals, before it gets out of hand.

I believe it's not faulty logic so much as a simple conflict of interest, and of course the complete lack of empathy for those individuals that they decide to exterminate.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 26 mars 2012 - 06:15 .

[MoSa09]

Lugaidster wrote...

However, I believe that the conclusion everyone's making is false. The reason for that is that the catalyst isn't killing organic life to stop synthetics killing organic life. That's an oversimplification. It's killing some organic life to prevent synthetics to kill all organic life. That premise might be wrong, but it's not a logical fallacy as there's no contradiction.

Circular logic means that the hypothesis build is essentially already proven by the chosen premises.

In his case, his hypothesis is: "Advanced organics will create synthetics that will kill all organics"

For circular logic, he would now need to make a premise that proves his hypothesis. But far as i am aware, he doesn't give one apart from the cryptic "we've seen it happening". But on the other hand, the only currently known example of synthetics systematically wiping out organics (not all, but all advanced) repeatedly is the Reapers, his solution to the very problem itself.

While at the same time, synthetics created by the advanced civilisations the Reapers have come to protect can be fighting alongside their creaters against the reapers.

So, is this circular logic? Arguable, since he's not giving premises, but i tend towards yes given the only known example is is very solution to the very problem.  The only example we as players have for his point are the solution he drafted to deal with this very problem.

Contradictions however, the fact that Geth and EDI fight along their creaters against the synthetic solution that should is made to pprevent EDI and the Geth from turning against their creators, it can't get any more contradictory than that.

[Lugaidster]

sydranark wrote...

Yes, to use the word "All" would make both claims false. Maybe P1 is refutable, but not all Synthetics kill all life. Plus in order for an argument to be sound, all premises need to be true. So, soundness isn't debatable, te argument simply is not. It is irrefutably valid, I agree with you there, but it sure as hell is not sound. 

Also dude, dumb logic is equivalent to unsound logic. =/ Soundness is how well an argument holds truth. An argument with a bunch of untrue premises may be valid, but it is definitely false. If someone tried to argue to you that 2+2 = 3, whatever premises he presents to create a valid aregument holds no weight. The very fact that this guy is arguing with false premises makes his argument dumb, simply because it is incorrect, and creating a conclusion out of a load of crap. 

Firstly, unless evidence can prove it wrong, it is at most debatable. We haven't created true artificial intelligence to be able to test if they won't kill us eventually. Which is why Technological Singularity is a hotly debated topic in the artificial intelligence field. Are you implying that those that argue that Technological Singularity is a possibility are wrong and stupid?

Secondly, dumb reasoning is equivalent to something someone dumb or stupid would do, ie not reasoning. An unsound argument may still be valid, as such, it's not stupid because it used correct reasoning. Plus, there's no way to prove the soundness of the argument when you don't know if the premises are irrefutably false.

Thirdly, the conclusion is not made up. If you concede that the argument is valid then the conclusion is valid, as it was correctly derived from the premises (whether true or false), thus not made up.

[Huami]

Lugaidster wrote...

Huami wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

Huami wrote...

the solution is never violence, the solution is always peace and harmony, it's really easy... c'mon... all you gotta do is eat, sleep, drink, ****, ******, and expand existence through knowledge and intelligence. Why in the Hell would synthetics kill all organic life if they've achieved the awareness level of organics? They should be living Like Organics... with rules and morals and modes of conduct to live peacefully and harmoniously with all other species - the capability to adapt and reassess their decision making just like how edi changed her value for joker's life above her own and any other crew member besides shepard...

If they've (the ai) surpassed the awareness level of any organic life form, then they should be able to present solutions to even the most difficult problems of organics... not genocide... that's the least enlightened and dumbest solution of all...

Yeah, because organics don't kill organics? C'mon. If anything, I'd hope that they had better moral values. But then again...

of course there are conflicts, and that's what makes a superior intelligence vastly different from an inferior one - how the superior will cultivate peace and harmony despite the differences, "kill everything" is an immature, selfish and very childish response. And also the Easiest way out. Humanity would not have survived up to this point in time if not for the desire for co-existence, peace, harmony, and reason between and within nations and cultures.

That's a subjective appreciation. You are assuming that the AI would hold our own principles. Not even all humans hold those values as important. 

PS: Not every human had a desire for co-existence, peace, harmony and reason. WW2 reminds me of the last attempt, and it's fairly recent. Hitler certainly had no intention on living with "lesser" races alongside him as equals.

and he failed, and at the end of the war everyone from hitler's side realized the insanity of his thinking, the reason why we continue to exist is that sanity and goodness prevails over evil, it is a battle between both eversince but the highest form of civilization, as a requisite, will have matured from this state and would be vastly enlightened seeing past inferior ways of thinking and solutions such as violence, genocide, and annihilation

Modifié par Huami, 26 mars 2012 - 06:27 .

[Huami]

guys, just watch the vid lol

[sydranark]

Lugaidster wrote...

sydranark wrote...

Yes, to use the word "All" would make both claims false. Maybe P1 is refutable, but not all Synthetics kill all life. Plus in order for an argument to be sound, all premises need to be true. So, soundness isn't debatable, te argument simply is not. It is irrefutably valid, I agree with you there, but it sure as hell is not sound. 

Also dude, dumb logic is equivalent to unsound logic. =/ Soundness is how well an argument holds truth. An argument with a bunch of untrue premises may be valid, but it is definitely false. If someone tried to argue to you that 2+2 = 3, whatever premises he presents to create a valid aregument holds no weight. The very fact that this guy is arguing with false premises makes his argument dumb, simply because it is incorrect, and creating a conclusion out of a load of crap. 

Firstly, unless evidence can prove it wrong, it is at most debatable. We haven't created true artificial intelligence to be able to test if they won't kill us eventually. Which is why Technological Singularity is a hotly debated topic in the artificial intelligence field. Are you implying that those that argue that Technological Singularity is a possibility are wrong and stupid?

Secondly, dumb reasoning is equivalent to something someone dumb or stupid would do, ie not reasoning. An unsound argument may still be valid, as such, it's not stupid because it used correct reasoning. Plus, there's no way to prove the soundness of the argument when you don't know if the premises are irrefutably false.

Thirdly, the conclusion is not made up. If you concede that the argument is valid then the conclusion is valid, as it was correctly derived from the premises (whether true or false), thus not made up.

hahaha sure, we haven't created true artificial intelligence. I thought we were talking ME here. In the story, AI has been created, and while some AI units in the game have tried to kill organics, not all have. So, there's plenty of evidence that not all AI kill. Therefore, that premise is false. =P

So to answer your question: no, I'm not saying those who argue that Technological Singularity is a possibilty are stupid. Simply because in the real world, we have absolutely no idea yet. Again, I was refering to the issues presented in the game. 

Anyway, as for dumbness. A dumb argument is something a dumb person would argue. Lets say I argue that all humans are birds, all birds are goats, so all humans are goats. My argument is valid, but my premises and conclusion are all false. That said, if I were trying to argue that all humans are goats, it would be safe to assume that I was stupid. Dumb. An idiot. Why? Because my premises are both false, and humans are obviously not goats. So to say so would be dumb.

Lastly, I didn't mean the conclusion of 2+2=3 was made up in the sense that is was invalid. I meant that the person who argued 2+2=3 with a valid argument would be pulling both premises out of his butt in order to make the conclusion. Therefore, the conclusion would be "made up," and the unsound argument would be dumb. And the person making that argument (and truly believing in that argument) would also be dumb as hell. 

[Lugaidster]

MoSa09 wrote...

Circular logic means that the hypothesis build is essentially already proven by the chosen premises.

In his case, his hypothesis is: "Advanced organics will create synthetics that will kill all organics"

For circular logic, he would now need to make a premise that proves his hypothesis. But far as i am aware, he doesn't give one apart from the cryptic "we've seen it happening". But on the other hand, the only currently known example of synthetics systematically wiping out organics (not all, but all advanced) repeatedly is the Reapers, his solution to the very problem itself.

While at the same time, synthetics created by the advanced civilisations the Reapers have come to protect can be fighting alongside their creaters against the reapers.

So, is this circular logic? Arguable, since he's not giving premises, but i tend towards yes given the only known example is is very solution to the very problem.  The only example we as players have for his point are the solution he drafted to deal with this very problem.

Contradictions however, the fact that Geth and EDI fight along their creaters against the synthetic solution that should is made to pprevent EDI and the Geth from turning against their creators, it can't get any more contradictory than that.

That's a bit of a simplification, and not entirely accurate. Circular logic uses the conclusion to prove the premise. The Catalyst isn't proving any premise, it's assuming they are true, and then goes on to reveal his conclusion based on them. Whether or not it is sound reasoning is up for debate (if you read previous posts). But it is correct reasoning, as the argument is valid (if you want to know why, read a few pages prior to this one). 

Furthermore, there are no contradictions. The fact that the Geth and EDI are fighting alongside you proves nothing but the fact that they want the reapers to go as much as you. After all, the reapers represent as much a menace to them as to you.

Regardless, thats only circumstancial evidence to challenge his premises, but it does nothing to his reasoning. If you could irrefutably prove to the Catalyst that the premise (synthetics will wipe out all organic life) is wrong, the catalyst should alter his conclusion, but there's no way you can do that. As such, you either kill him or accept one of the other *new* solutions.

I'm not defending him per se, but the reasoning isn't flawed, nor circular, nor dumb.

[DarkSpiral]

Lugaidster wrote...

Let me start by saying that I'm not here to defend the ending, I believe that it could have been handled way better, but I've seen way too many times people disregarding the Reapers purpouse because it's circular logic. Commonly going to this meme:

<snip pic>

However, I believe that the conclusion everyone's making is false. The reason for that is that the catalyst isn't killing organic life to stop synthetics killing organic life. That's an oversimplification. It's killing some organic life to prevent synthetics to kill all organic life. That premise might be wrong, but it's not a logical fallacy as there's no contradiction.

The best analogy I can come up with is prunning trees. When the trees are growing, sometimes the best way to ensure proper growing is by pruning it (ie, killing some branches) instead of leaving the tree to die because some branches take all the food killing all the otherones. (This does happen in some fruit trees and you have to prune it to ensure that all fruits are good).

Again, I'm not defending the ending nor am I defending the motive of the reapers, but it's completely a different thing to call it stupid logic when it's not. It's arguable, but certainly not stupid.

I actually agree with you.  The logic isn't circular.  It's cold, and devoid of empathy.  It's a strictly logical form of sympathy, I suppose.  The Reapers are, by this logic, preventing a synthetic lifeform from ever coming into being that wll completly scour the gaalxy clean of all organic life.  Most people overlook that fact in their outrage over the overall state of the end of the game.

This premise could have worked.  WOULD have worked, if we'f been allowed to toss the Catalyst's logic in it's face.  Denied it's self-procliamed authority over the furture of the entire galaxy, and seized or destiny in our own hands.  We were not give that option.  Which is why the entire thing ssimply sucks out loud.

[sydranark]

just to clarify, false premises must come from somewhere. if a person "makes up" premises, even if the argument is valid in terms of X -> Y, Y -> Z, X=Z, the premises are bogus. Therefore the argument is bogus. A person arguing something bogus is what I call "an idiot."

Modifié par sydranark, 26 mars 2012 - 06:36 .