Modifié par Orange Tee, 26 mars 2012 - 06:40 .
sydranark wrote...
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
sydranark wrote...
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.
sydranark wrote...
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.
Orange Tee wrote...
Circular logic - "A method of false logic by which 'this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this'; also called circular reasoning."
So killing organics that create synthetics, with synthetics created by organics just isn't circular logic at all right? Not at all? You're sure? You know how ridiculously close that sounds to circular logi- ok fine. Have it your way. I'll just be over here. Shaking my head.
Modifié par TheLastAwakening, 26 mars 2012 - 06:55 .
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.
Huami wrote...
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
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.
Modifié par Xelv88, 26 mars 2012 - 06:58 .
TheLastAwakening wrote...
The conclusion is the same, this is simply similar logic. However, the prevent one is a fallacy because there is noway to know for sure that by killing organic life the Reapers are preventing the conclusion that synthetic life will kill organic life, etc. Rather, the idea that synthetic life will kill organics is assumed and misleading, which is the real problem. The conclusion maybe true or false and at least this time we have somewhat evidence that the conclusion maybe false: Geth helping the Quarians.
Edit: I can paradoy your statements if needed to expand upon what I said.
Edit2: spelling (no~know)
Zine2 wrote...
Arguing about whether or not the logic was circular is pointless.
It was still a completely stupid and offensive justification. You do not save a people by mass-murdering them. That's no different than turning a city into a desert and then calling it peace.
Zine2 wrote...
Arguing about whether or not the logic was circular is pointless.
It was still a completely stupid and offensive justification. You do not save a people by mass-murdering them. That's no different than turning a city into a desert and then calling it peace.
Bathaius wrote...
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.
First post claims the prize!
Moving on.
Lugaidster wrote...
Orange Tee wrote...
Circular logic - "A method of false logic by which 'this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this'; also called circular reasoning."
So killing organics that create synthetics, with synthetics created by organics just isn't circular logic at all right? Not at all? You're sure? You know how ridiculously close that sounds to circular logi- ok fine. Have it your way. I'll just be over here. Shaking my head.
That only shows you didn't really understand... but go ahead. No one's stoping you from shaking your head.
Modifié par Orange Tee, 26 mars 2012 - 07:25 .
Lugaidster wrote...
TheLastAwakening wrote...
The conclusion is the same, this is simply similar logic. However, the prevent one is a fallacy because there is noway to know for sure that by killing organic life the Reapers are preventing the conclusion that synthetic life will kill organic life, etc. Rather, the idea that synthetic life will kill organics is assumed and misleading, which is the real problem. The conclusion maybe true or false and at least this time we have somewhat evidence that the conclusion maybe false: Geth helping the Quarians.
Edit: I can paradoy your statements if needed to expand upon what I said.
Edit2: spelling (no~know)
Correct or valid reasoning doesn't require the premises to be true. You can argue all you want that synthetics won't kill organics. But if you assume the premises, the conclusion is correct and valid. As such, the reasoning the Catalyst applied is correct and valid; not circular or stupid. His solution isn't perfect, but no solution I've heard here is. Furthermore, no solution I've seen is objectively preferable.
At most you can say that either the catalyst or the writters weren't imaginative enough, but then again, no one has proposed a better solution. Policing the organics to behave isn't an objectively preferable solution in my eyes. The only thing that makes it more valuable is that it allows organics to preserve their current form, and the problem with it is that it allows organics to develop enough to surpass reapers or reach a ceiling enforced by the reapers, which makes the situation risky.
So yeah, not the best solution ever, but by no means invalid or stupid.
Modifié par TheLastAwakening, 26 mars 2012 - 07:29 .
Lugaidster wrote...
Arguing about anything in the game could be considered pointless, but then again, why are we here?
Furthermore, he's not presenting mass-murder as his solution,
Modifié par Zine2, 26 mars 2012 - 07:36 .
DarkSpiral wrote...
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.
Orange Tee wrote...
Lugaidster wrote...
Orange Tee wrote...
Circular logic - "A method of false logic by which 'this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this'; also called circular reasoning."
So killing organics that create synthetics, with synthetics created by organics just isn't circular logic at all right? Not at all? You're sure? You know how ridiculously close that sounds to circular logi- ok fine. Have it your way. I'll just be over here. Shaking my head.
That only shows you didn't really understand... but go ahead. No one's stoping you from shaking your head.
No I'm quite confident that's exactly what the Starchild meant. Not SOME, but ALL. This is made quite clear, I don't understand how that's not clear.
Maybe organic really isn't specific enough word. Sentient may describe it better.
Zine2 wrote...
Lugaidster wrote...
Arguing about anything in the game could be considered pointless, but then again, why are we here?
Deflection. My point is that regardless of what kind of stupid the Star Child engages in, it remains monumentally stupid, regardless.
Debating levels of how monumentally stupid the Star Child is, or the excruciating details of the Star Child's stupidity, is pointless.
Arguing that the Star Child's logic is actually correct, on the other hand, is quite simply called lying.
Furthermore, he's not presenting mass-murder as his solution,
It is not up for debate.
The Catalyst created the Reapers.
The Reapers commit mass genocide every 50,000 years. This is to solve the problem of "Chaos".
This is not an "interpretation". This is the simple factual truth of the Catalyst's actions.
It is a mass-murderer. And its stated reason for committing mass-murder is to "save" the races it is genociding.
In effect, it is saying "To save you, I must kill you!". It tries to disguise its actions with the same kind of euphemisms Hitler uses (i.e. "Solution" instead of "Genocide"), but any ten-year old can tell you that "Saving" and "Killing" are two contrary things and only a psycopath could think that they can be one and the same.
tl;dr: Anyone who is arguing about the specifics of the Catalyst's stupidity (It's not circular logic! It's just logical fail!) is a complete waste of time as it's nothing more than semantic quibbling. On the other hand, anyone who is arguing that the Catalyst isn't stupid is lying - it is not open to debate or "interpretation".
The problem with your anaology is it's not accurate. To be accurate, the reapers are cutting the whole tree, so the young tree around can grow, but they will be cut years later, and the cycle will continue. That doesn't makes sense. To stay with the analogy, if the reapers was just cutting some branch, it would mean they "just" kill some people to prevent the synthetic creation, IE quarians to avoid geths, or scientists...Lugaidster wrote...
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).
Modifié par daguest, 26 mars 2012 - 07:55 .
daguest wrote...
The problem with your anaology is it's not accurate. To be accurate, the reapers are cutting the whole tree, so the young tree around can grow, but they will be cut years later, and the cycle will continue. That doesn't makes sense. To stay with the analogy, if the reapers was just cutting some branch, it would mean they "just" kill some people to prevent the synthetic creation, IE quarians to avoid geths, or scientists...Lugaidster wrote...
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).
Also, according to the catalyst logic, since he created the reapers, the reapers should rebel against him ("created always rebel against creators").
The only thing the catalyst say to defend his circular logic is reapers do not kill sapiens species for nothing, they "harvest" us so they can use our form for next reapers generation. IE like the human reaper in ME2. But this is proved wrong, since every single reapers looks like the others, and there is no "prothean reapers", except maybe the 4 glowing eyes of harbinger, which can be related to protheans.
Zine2 wrote...
In effect, it is saying "To save you, I must kill you!". It tries to disguise its actions with the same kind of euphemisms Hitler uses (i.e. "Solution" instead of "Genocide"), but any ten-year old can tell you that "Saving" and "Killing" are two contrary things and only a psycopath could think that they can be one and the same.
Retour en haut