695 réponses à ce sujet

[Tocquevillain]

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.

Any ten year old is not a 37 million year old Reaper charged with preserving organic life by killing advanced civilizations.

So I don't really see your point. You keep trying to make the Reaper's motivations understandable by comparing it to humans, when everything they do is so insanely inhuman and so "big picture" that we could never fully understand it and agree to go along with it. 

[TheLastAwakening]

The biggest problem is if the reapers want to prevent synthetics from wiping out all organics they could simply of uploaded their reaper tech into the synthetics with a code to prevent them from rebelling against their creators... rewriting them...

O

Can't wait till Edi wipes out all organics too...

Modifié par TheLastAwakening, 26 mars 2012 - 08:07 .

[Lugaidster]

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...

It's akin to cutting any branch large enough to skew the growth of the tree, not everything and turning the tree into a stump. If each branch is a civilization, then primitive (ie young branches) are left alive.

daguest wrote... 

Also, according to the catalyst logic, since he created the reapers, the reapers should rebel against him ("created always rebel against creators").

 

That's assuming he has no control over them, which he says he has. In that regard, the reapers don't possess free will as they chose.

daguest wrote... 

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.

Circular logic how? How's the conclusion in anyway used to prove one of the premises? The conclusion is a correct product of the premises, assuming they are true. If they aren't then the conclusion is simply wrong (which is the reason Shepard is fighting them), not stupid.

daguest wrote...  

Anyway, according to Sovereign, they shape our evolution, in each cycle. So tell me, why do they shape it each time so we build synthetics and need to be harvested ? Why they do not choose to shape it another way ? Why don't they act like some kind of police and say "If you create synthetic, we kill you all" ? Or just act like gods, like Prothean with the asari, and say "your gods forbid you to makes AI" ?

They aren't modifying behavior. They are setting you on a predictable path. That path does nothing to affect your interest in building a synthetic. The only way to prevent that interest from appearing is removing our ability to think for ourselves, as sentient beings will always create tools to aid them. Whether or not synthetic life is possible is debatable, but if it is, we will build it at some point. Altering behavior is one way to look at it, but if they do, then they aren't leaving primitive species become self-aware.

BTW, as if gods have prevented us from doing stuff. God says we shall not steal or kill and look at the amount of people that do that. 

The level of involvement the reapers should have on galactic evolution is debatable, but that's about it. You will always find pro's and con's for each solution you propose assuming the premises are true. Their's is simply one of them, as no single one is perfect, or objectively better.

daguest wrote...   

The reapers reason for genocide should have stayed what sovereign said : an unknown we couldn't understand anyway.

I'll agree on that.

[Draconis6666]

Lugaidster wrote...

daguest wrote... 

Also, according to the catalyst logic, since he created the reapers, the reapers should rebel against him ("created always rebel against creators").

 

That's assuming he has no control over them, which he says he has. In that regard, the reapers don't possess free will as they chose.

Thats the point though, his logic implies that there is no way to ensure control and that they will ALWAYS find a way to rise against their creator, his logic is that synthetic intelligences will ALWAYS rise against their creator and destroy all life, it has to be that or he is basing his "solution" not on a problem, but on a possible problem that might happen in some cases in that event his solution becomes not only monsterous but rediculous. Its like saying well you might some day get in a car wreck so we sill shoot you now so you dont get in a wreck and kill more people later, its based on maybes and not absolutes making it terrible logic.

Modifié par Draconis6666, 26 mars 2012 - 08:13 .

[Zine2]

Tocquevillain wrote...

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.

Any ten year old is not a 37 million year old Reaper charged with preserving organic life by killing advanced civilizations.

So I don't really see your point. You keep trying to make the Reaper's motivations understandable by comparing it to humans, when everything they do is so insanely inhuman and so "big picture" that we could never fully understand it and agree to go along with it. 

Any ten year old will point out that turning people into liquid mush kills them; therefore the Catalyst is not saving Organics. It is mass-murdering them.

You can dance around this all you want, but the fact remains: By any measure of logic, the Reapers were doing the exact thing they were supposedly preventing. It doesn't matter if you're a ten year old or a ten thousand year old. The logic is the same. If the ten year old can figure it out and the ten thousand year old can't, then the ten thousand year old is simply a moron.

Facts are facts. The Catalyst is an idiot. "Killing" is not "Saving". Anyone trying to argue otherwise is just going to engage in semantic bull**** (It's not killing! It's Ascension! It's a Solution!) or by outright lying (A ten thousand year old intelligence should not be judged by "human" logic - WRONG. Logic is logic. "Killing" and "Saving" are not synonymous actions no matter how much you try to juggle the semantics).

[AnttiV]

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).

I don't know if anyone pointed this out already, but there's a flaw in that analogy. What you say is true, some plants need pruning. BUT the process of pruning in itself is a process of removing LESSER/BAD branches to make space/foor available for the BETTER branches.

What the reapers do is actually exactly the opposite. They wipe out ADVANCED civilizations, not the synthetics (that they think are the "bad guys"), not the lesser civilizations (that will eventually make the same "mistake" all over again). They actually wipe out the guys that are most probable to come up with a solution to the problem. The once with the most techonolgy. If the reapers were REALLY interested in the preservation of organic life (or at least preventation of synthetic life), they would make sure if wouldn't happen in the first place. If they ONLY cared that synthetic life wouldn't happen, they would wipe out ALL organic life in the first place (and thus make Catalyst's logic truly circular), OR if they really care about the continuation of organic life, they would tell that to the races, one way or another. (leave clues in the citadel, tell them outright. periodically wipe out synthetic life, not organic.. anything other really). By making the relay network and citadel available and only wiping the most advanced civilizations periodically without giving any reason to the rest of the galaxy, they are actually ADDING to the problem, not solving it. 

To that analogy, the reapers are akin to the gardener picking out (and throwing away) the most PROMISING fruits when they are not ripe yet. (or picking out the flowers). Then wondering why the heck doesn't the tree produce perfect fruits...

[Draconis6666]

The main problem is that circular or not, by his own logic synthetics will ALWAYS rise up against their creator and destroy all organic life at some point. So he created the reapers to solve this problem, but the problem is that by his own logic the Reapers will eventually do this, so he has created a solution to a problem that is destined to one day fullfill the terms of that problem rather than continue to be a solution. There is no getting around this or his logic is not logic, if the reapers are synthetics and all synthetic forms of life will one day destroy all organic life if they are allowed to develop, then the reapers must do this or they break the logic themselves and it becomes a broken theory that now is based on maybes and probabilities.

[Zine2]

Lugaidster wrote...


I'm sorry, but I don't agree that it's stupid. It's crazy as hell

Crazy as hell = stupid.

All you're arguing is that "It's understandable because it's a machine who can't have human emotions".

Sorry, but no. You cannot judge based on intent. You have to judge based on actions. Reapers commit mass genocide. They are the problem, not the solution. Brat AI needs to pay for creating the problem, and it's completely and utterly irrelevant if he's an unfeeling machine incapable of having empathy with organics.

Being an unfeeling machine does not excuse you from stupidity.

[Tallestra]

The problem lies in the concept itself.
(a) Organic civilizations will eventually create synthetics
( The created will always rebel against their creators wiping *all* organic life in the process.
The only way these premises are true, if the creators of the universe (BW) make them a law of nature in the universe. But then they effectively claim that their universe is static and everything is predetermined and free will doesn't matter. But that is very defeatist philosophy of life and stands against main them of the game.

[Lugaidster]

Zine2 wrote...

Tocquevillain wrote...

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.

Any ten year old is not a 37 million year old Reaper charged with preserving organic life by killing advanced civilizations.

So I don't really see your point. You keep trying to make the Reaper's motivations understandable by comparing it to humans, when everything they do is so insanely inhuman and so "big picture" that we could never fully understand it and agree to go along with it. 

Any ten year old will point out that turning people into liquid mush kills them; therefore the Catalyst is not saving Organics. It is mass-murdering them.

You can dance around this all you want, but the fact remains: By any measure of logic, the Reapers were doing the exact thing they were supposedly preventing. It doesn't matter if you're a ten year old or a ten thousand year old. The logic is the same. If the ten year old can figure it out and the ten thousand year old can't, then the ten thousand year old is simply a moron.

Facts are facts. The Catalyst is an idiot. "Killing" is not "Saving". Anyone trying to argue otherwise is just going to engage in semantic bull**** (It's not killing! It's Ascension! It's a Solution!) or by outright lying (A ten thousand year old intelligence should not be judged by "human" logic - WRONG. Logic is logic. "Killing" and "Saving" are not synonymous actions no matter how much you try to juggle the semantics).

You are oversimplifying the situation by making assumptions on ten year olds logic. Now that's stupid. If you don't understand something, it doesn't really matter what you call it, it is a product of your lack of comprehension. Maybe the reapers are true in that they aren't killing you. You just see it as death because you don't continue to exist in your current form.

What's worse, as you say, facts are facts. He's not saving you, he's saving primitive organics. You are preserved in another life form. So yeah, killing is not saving, but he's not trying to save you. When someone does something you don't agree with, it doesn't mean he's an idiot or stupid, that's just being narrowminded.

[GodChildInTheMachine]

The Catalyst's argument is guilty of both Circular Reasoning and Begging the Question and is therefore formally and informally invalid.

[daguest]

Lugaidster wrote...

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...

It's akin to cutting any branch large enough to skew the growth of the tree, not everything and turning the tree into a stump. If each branch is a civilization, then primitive (ie young branches) are left alive.

The destroy whole civilization, they disapear forever, their DNA is lost for the galaxy (even if you can say it's not lost inside reapers). The whole species is gone, forever. If you just remove branch from a tree, he is not destroyed, that's a difference. A stump mean the tree is dead, destroyed forever, like the species reapers harvest.

Lugaidster wrote..

daguest wrote... 

Also, according to the catalyst logic, since he created the reapers, the reapers should rebel against him ("created always rebel against creators").

 

That's assuming he has no control over them, which he says he has. In that regard, the reapers don't possess free will as they chose.

So, the catalyst CAN control synthetic, while us, we can't ? What's the difference ? Free will ? Organics have free will, if synthetics also have free will, does it makes them a lot different than us ? According to EDI and geth and tali, no. 

Lugaidster wrote...

daguest wrote...  

Anyway, according to Sovereign, they shape our evolution, in each cycle. So tell me, why do they shape it each time so we build synthetics and need to be harvested ? Why they do not choose to shape it another way ? Why don't they act like some kind of police and say "If you create synthetic, we kill you all" ? Or just act like gods, like Prothean with the asari, and say "your gods forbid you to makes AI" ?

They aren't modifying behavior. They are setting you on a predictable path. That path does nothing to affect your interest in building a synthetic. The only way to prevent that interest from appearing is removing our ability to think for ourselves, as sentient beings will always create tools to aid them. Whether or not synthetic life is possible is debatable, but if it is, we will build it at some point. Altering behavior is one way to look at it, but if they do, then they aren't leaving primitive species become self-aware.

BTW, as if gods have prevented us from doing stuff. God says we shall not steal or kill and look at the amount of people that do that.

God, yes. But we talk about false gods. They aren't real god. Imagine our civilization, meeting from time to time with a reaper. A real god for us. Imagine the Bible talking about reapers and how they protected us against a meteor shower, and how the gave us rules, and how we shouldn't create synthetics because it's an abomination. Do you think we will try anyway, and have thousands killed by the reapers because we didn't listen ?
You don't see God. Never meet him. Many doesn't beleive in him (I am one of them). That's why it's called a faith. But a real reaper flying in the sky and talking to me ? I think I would beleive in him.

Modifié par daguest, 26 mars 2012 - 08:24 .

[Lugaidster]

Draconis6666 wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

daguest wrote... 

Also, according to the catalyst logic, since he created the reapers, the reapers should rebel against him ("created always rebel against creators").

 

That's assuming he has no control over them, which he says he has. In that regard, the reapers don't possess free will as they chose.

We are talking about reapers. He has control over the reapers, but just them. He doesn't control other synthetics and doesn't imply he does.


Thats the point though, his logic implies that there is no way to ensure control and that they will ALWAYS find a way to rise against their creator, his logic is that synthetic intelligences will ALWAYS rise against their creator and destroy all life, it has to be that or he is basing his "solution" not on a problem, but on a possible problem that might happen in some cases in that event his solution becomes not only monsterous but rediculous. Its like saying well you might some day get in a car wreck so we sill shoot you now so you dont get in a wreck and kill more people later, its based on maybes and not absolutes making it terrible logic.

[Zine2]

Seloun wrote...
Religion?

Saying "The Catalyst is acting out of religious beliefs!" only further confirms the fact that it's an idiot not acting based on simple facts and logic.

It's not impossible to see how it might make sense to say 'to save you, I must kill you' if you accept that he's talking about organics as a whole.

Nope, that just makes it a bigger idiot. If your objective is to save Organics, then you don't do it by killing some of them periodically. That's not "saving". That's called deliberate and systematic extermination. 

It also ignores the fact that other solutions are possible. In the real world, countries do not fire nuclear weapons at each other over simple disputes. People actually do something called "diplomacy" and try to sort things out and find a solution to the problem. If the Reapers are completely unaware of these simple problem-solving skills, then they are not simply idiots. They are monsters that should be eliminated for the safety of all other sentient life.

Moreover,  if the cycle (Reapers committing mass genocide) keeps repeating itself then eventually the galaxy will simply run out of Organic species to take the place of the ones that were genocided. We have a finite number of stars in the galaxy, and hence a finite number of organic races. Therefore, the "cycle" is self-defeating, it will eventually wipe out all organics.

[Lugaidster]

daguest wrote...

The destroy whole civilization, they disapear forever, their DNA is lost for the galaxy (even if you can say it's not lost inside reapers). The whole species is gone, forever. If you just remove branch from a tree, he is not destroyed, that's a difference. A stump mean the tree is dead, destroyed forever, like the species reapers harvest.

You are missing the point of the analogy. We have to stand on common ground here, if each branch is a civilization, than "reaping" one of them isn't cuting the entire tree. Furthermore, the reapers do imply that they preserve the DNA in reaper form. It's your choice to believe what he claims is true or not, but that's really irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is that the catalyst's reasoning is correct and valid.

If you want to propose a different analogy, go ahead, but make sure it's also accurate. 

daguest wrote... 

So, the catalyst CAN control synthetic, while us, we can't ? What's the difference ? Free will ? Organics have free will, if synthetics also have free will, does it makes them a lot different than us ? According to EDI and geth and tali, no.

He can control the reapers, not synthetics. That would make the reapers akin to a shackled AI like EDI was, or an advanced form of VI.

daguest wrote...  

God, yes. But we talk about false gods. They aren't real god. Imagine our civilization, meeting from time to time with a reaper. A real god for us. Imagine the Bible talking about reapers and how they protected us against a meteor shower, and how the gave us rules, and how we shouldn't create synthetics because it's an abomination. Do you think we will try anyway, and have thousands killed by the reapers because we didn't listen ?
You don't see God. Never meet him. Many doesn't beleive in him (I am one of them). That's why it's called a faith. But a real reaper flying in the sky and talking to me ? I think I would beleive in him.

Imagine if they came every 2 thousand years or so. Some people would behemently believe they exist and some wouldn't. And people would write stories about them and the likes, and... wait, hasn't that happened already?

[Lugaidster]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

The Catalyst's argument is guilty of both Circular Reasoning and Begging the Question and is therefore formally and informally invalid.

I stated the reasons why it isn't, care to elaborate? or are you simply a troll?

[Zine2]

Lugaidster wrote...
You are oversimplifying the situation

Killing is not saving.

It is that simple.

Any attempt to over complicate this is simply semantic wordplay or outright lying.

In short, I am not oversimplifying. I am simply pointing out that you are blatantly confusing the situation with outright lies and attempts to look "deeper" into the issue, when it is all irrelevant in the face of actual Reaper actions and the complete and utter stupidity of their stated logic.
 

If you don't understand something

I understand better than you that what the Reapers do is simply logically false and completely unjustifiable from any perspective.

I do not care about a monster's motivations. I care about its actions. The Reapers have committed multiple mass murder. Their logic for this is completely faulty and does nothing to serve the greater good. They are thus a problem and they must be eliminated for the good of all sentient beings - Synthetic or Organic. It is that simple.

You are preserved in another life form.

No, this is what is called "lying". If you fail to save Kelly Chambers from being turned into organic mush, she was not "preserved" as a new life form. She was murdered. Horribly and painfully.

Everyone killed by the Reapers was murdered. Ascension is a euphemism for genocide. It is no different from Hitler calling genocide a "Final Solution".

It is that simple. And you are that wrong. Murder is murder. Killing is killing. It is not "saving".

[AnttiV]

Reapers as gods? So...

K: Your words are heartening. For you would not fear us, unless we could truly do you harm.
EG: No! You are nothing!
K: False God! This is the end... the final turn of your Wheel!

[RockyRoberts]

Zine2 wrote...

Sorry, but no. You cannot judge based on intent. You have to judge based on actions. Reapers commit mass genocide. They are the problem, not the solution. Brat AI needs to pay for creating the problem, and it's completely and utterly irrelevant if he's an unfeeling machine incapable of having empathy with organics.

Being an unfeeling machine does not excuse you from stupidity.

Could an AI/VI really not decipher that mass murder was the exact opposite of what he told us he was trying to do??

Hoola-hooping circles

*SNIP SNIP*

...who cares about discussing the implications of our A, B, C endings...we are just gonna make them choose!!

[Dreamdancer]

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.

You're thinking like an organic - or more precisely like a human being. You're not thinking like a computer. I doubt this was done deliberately, but the solution touches on two major issues (among others) AI research is facing, and that is reasonable generalization and reasonable limitation.

Take this godchild/AI as an example. Let's say at some point in the distant past someone created this AI, fed it with information and then said something like: "You know, organics have this dreadful tendency to create synthetics, who will rebel against their masters and kill of all organics. Just do something about it and make this problem go away, will you?"

So whatever the process is behind it, the AI comes up with the idea to create synthetics itself to regularly purge all advanced organic life from the galaxy. (Purge all organic life? Nah, too much effort and too much bleeding life in the galaxy - you never get finished with one). This way the organics will never get into the situation where they can be killed off by the synthtices they have created, because the synthetics have been created by the AI. Problem solved. Forget for a second where the resources may have come from and that the 50k year cycle is not something a computer would do.

Any organic, or human, take your pick, will immediately cry BS on that. But for a computer this is a perfectly valid solution. When we get a problem like this one, we automatically imply certain restrictions. In this case, we firstly go in and imply that the person asking us to do something about this problem quite likely want the organics to survive. We generalize: Because the person tells us that he doesn't want to have the organics killed by synthetics, we assume he does not want to kill them at all. So any solution that would kill off the organics is automatically invalidated, because we want the organics to survive. So our options are suddenly limited.

The point is that we still apply those limitations fully automatic even when the person basically has told us that there are no limits ("Just do something about and make this problem go away") We would quite likely interpret that that we have unlimited resources, but not that we can kill off the organics.

Sounds easy enough, but the problem is that we have no clue how we do it, or what "reasonable" actually is. As long as we don't know that, we do have some trouble a computer/VI/AI to imitate that behaviour. Having followed the AI discussion for quite some time now, I sort of doubt that we will ever be able to do this.

Without these mechanisms, and therefore without any limitations, a computer can come up with solutions that will sound wildly unlogical to us, but are inherently logical.

Having said that, I really got stumped when the godchild said that Shep's presence invalidated its solution. I was going "What?". Shep's presence is may be a danger to the solution of the godchild, but it does not invalidate it.

Modifié par Dreamdancer, 26 mars 2012 - 08:44 .

[Lugaidster]

Zine2 wrote...

Seloun wrote...
Religion?

Saying "The Catalyst is acting out of religious beliefs!" only further confirms the fact that it's an idiot not acting based on simple facts and logic.

It's not impossible to see how it might make sense to say 'to save you, I must kill you' if you accept that he's talking about organics as a whole.

Nope, that just makes it a bigger idiot. If your objective is to save Organics, then you don't do it by killing some of them periodically. That's not "saving". That's called deliberate and systematic extermination. 

It also ignores the fact that other solutions are possible. In the real world, countries do not fire nuclear weapons at each other over simple disputes. People actually do something called "diplomacy" and try to sort things out and find a solution to the problem. If the Reapers are completely unaware of these simple problem-solving skills, then they are not simply idiots. They are monsters that should be eliminated for the safety of all other sentient life.

Moreover,  if the cycle (Reapers committing mass genocide) keeps repeating itself then eventually the galaxy will simply run out of Organic species to take the place of the ones that were genocided. We have a finite number of stars in the galaxy, and hence a finite number of organic races. Therefore, the "cycle" is self-defeating, it will eventually wipe out all organics.

Ok, so you don't agree with his premises or his methods, how does that prove he's stupid? Furthermore, what makes you believe that life won't appear again in those planets? This planet has had near complete extintion events in the past that have forever altered the evolutionary process and yet, we still are here. 

The purpose is self defeating if your only intent is for synthetics to not conquer the galaxy. If you want every organic specie that can appear from the galaxy to have a chance at reaching their apex (as the reapers put it), then it's not self defeating, as by reaping current civilizations you allow primitive ones to evolve. That's his conclusion, you can disagree with him and that's ok, but to call it stupid or faulty logic is another completely different issue. 

[MadRabbit999]

There is actually a much more simpler reason why the child is not contradicting himself:

He does not want to kill life, he pretty much says that he wants to change the form of organics and "ascend" them or "store" them into form of reapers...(to which Shepards answers "F*** that, we want to keep our own form" pretty much) now that might be wrong to you or me, but to a machine that is just fine, and it is not killing for the sake of killing.. so the whole thing actually makes sense when you carefully listen;

[Zine2]

Re: "You're not thinking like a machine!" Defense

Sorry, but stupid premise. The definiting quality of "personhood" is sentience. Therefore a sentient machine should recognize a sentient organic as an individual worthy of respect and continued existence.

Turning people into organic mush ends their sentient existence. It does not preserve them. It turns them into furniture. No different from the Concentration Camps using the hair and skin of dead victims as furniture materials during the Holocaust.

As the Geth have shown, you can have machines that do understand that sentience is the defining quality of personhood. If you cannot understand this simple concept and seek to end the existence of other sentient being "just because I say so!", then you're a monster that should be destroyed - no different from a wild dog that needs to be put down for its inability to respect the life and existence of others.

It's THAT simple. We did not progress through thousands of years of civilization to revert back to "I didn't kill him! I just shrunk his head as a trophy so he still exists!"

Modifié par Zine2, 26 mars 2012 - 08:48 .

[Comguard2]

It's faulty logic because the Catalyst can't be sure it will happen, unless he witnessed it - but that would mean no organics.

So the whole cycle-stuff is based on an assumption.

[Draconis6666]

Lugaidster wrote...

Draconis6666 wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

daguest wrote... 

Also, according to the catalyst logic, since he created the reapers, the reapers should rebel against him ("created always rebel against creators").

 

That's assuming he has no control over them, which he says he has. In that regard, the reapers don't possess free will as they chose.

Thats the point though, his logic implies that there is no way to ensure control and that they will ALWAYS find a way to rise against their creator, his logic is that synthetic intelligences will ALWAYS rise against their creator and destroy all life, it has to be that or he is basing his "solution" not on a problem, but on a possible problem that might happen in some cases in that event his solution becomes not only monsterous but rediculous. Its like saying well you might some day get in a car wreck so we sill shoot you now so you dont get in a wreck and kill more people later, its based on maybes and not absolutes making it terrible logic.

We are talking about reapers. He has control over the reapers, but just them. He doesn't control other synthetics and doesn't imply he does. 

Doesnt matter it still makes his logic faulty, the fact that he can control the reapers invalidates his logic that all synthetic life will rebel against its creator and destroy all organic life. If the Reapers will not because he has control over them then his logic is invalid.