695 réponses à ce sujet

[sevtron]

Here is something I just thought about. Forgive me if it has been mentioned before: If the cycle must take place, if reaping is the only answer, why not initialize the cycle in a way that is better suited for self-sustainment? If the cycle must be preserved why start it every 50k years, when societies have had a chance to grow and propagate amongst the stars? Why not begin the process of reaping once galactic civilization has achieved initial forays into nearby star systems. Wouldn't it be a lot more efficient to reap a society that has absolutely no capability to damage you, versus a society that has even a limited capability of fighting back?

[Draconis6666]

Tallestra wrote...

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.

'

Even in a purely static universe where everything is predetermined and these premises are true his logic still fails because the logic itself dictates that his solution will become part of the problem by premise B

[TheLastAwakening]

I did not notice the front page changed..The problem still remains that the conclusion is false or uncertain. An uncertain conclusion makes the argument invalid. No quotations, however, I must borrow from the Op.

(a)Organic civilizations will eventually create synthetics- True
(b)The created will always rebel against their creators wiping *all* organic life in the process.- True
Creating synthetics wipes out all organic life- [False or uncertain = invalid]

(a)Organic civilizations will eventually create synthetics- True
(b)The created will always rebel against their creators wiping *all* organic life in the process.-True
[As a consequence] The reapers will come every so often to harvest and store advanced civilizations in reaper form leaving primitive organics alone.- [True]

This is only valid if the Catalyst considered one logical argument and if it did...It is stupid!

plus this:

Draconis6666 wrote...

Even in a purely static universe where everything is predetermined and these premises are true his logic still fails because the logic itself dictates that his solution will become part of the problem by premise B

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: orginally, I was allowing the reader to decide whether or not they agreed with the arguement, however this lead to some confusion so I removed the T or F markers.

Modifié par TheLastAwakening, 26 mars 2012 - 09:16 .

[Dreamdancer]

Zine2 wrote...

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.

Sorry, but stupid premise. Sorry, couldn't resist. Our definig quality of "personhood" is sentinence. You have no idea what the defining quality was for the beings that created the AI.

Even if the AI uses this defining quality, you imply that sentinence automatically is worth of respect and continued existence. Where did you get that from? I certainly agree, but why should the AI or the creators of the AI have the same set of values?

Modifié par Dreamdancer, 26 mars 2012 - 08:55 .

[Hendrik.III]

Draconis6666 wrote...
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.

This, also. He is proving himself wrong.

The premise that the created will always rebel against their creators is false. That it happened in his case, might be true. But it's assumption based on a single occurrence, which does not make it fact.

And even if his circular logic was correct, it does not automatically mean it is also true.

[Zine2]

Dreamdancer wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

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.

Sorry, but stupid premise. Sorry, couldn't resist. Our definig quality of "personhood" is sentinence. You have no idea what the defining quality was for the beings that created the AI.

Even if the AI uses this defining quality, you imply that sentinence automatically is worth of respect and continued existence. Where did you get that from? I certainly agree, but why should the AI or the creators of the AI have the same set of values?

I don't care what it thinks the defining quality should be. If it's not sentience, and it tries to hurt other sentients because it's that retarded, then it should be destroyed. It's that simple.

Men are not potatoes. If you encounter something that thinks men are potatoes, then it IS the problem, not the solution.

In other words, premise remains stupid. You do not need to try and figure out the motivations of a wild dog suffering from rabbies. You just need to find a way to stop it from biting and killing people.

Modifié par Zine2, 26 mars 2012 - 09:00 .

[Mixon]

 ME3 is a strange game...

[Lugaidster]

Zine2 wrote...

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.

Ugh... seriously. If you can't even attempt to understand then whatever conclusion you come up is simply stupid. You're just being narrowminded.

Zine2 wrote...  

I understand better than you

Clearly not, and you're using very poor arguments to support your stance. Look at the above quote. "Killing is not saving" So if we kill a terrorist with a bomb strapped to his chest before he explodes it we aren't saving other people?

Zine2 wrote...   

that what the Reapers do is simply logically false and completely unjustifiable from any perspective. 

 

Somewhat true, if it were a sound argument (ie, both premises true and a logical conclusion) then his conclusion would be an acceptable solution to the problem and we wouldn't be fighting the reapers. But then again, it's not a sound argument because the the premises aren't irrefutably true. Furthermore, it certainly isn't justifiable from your perspective, but given that your narrowminded I'm not seeing how you can put yourself in other shoes to analyze a situation from a perspective other than yours. 

Zine2 wrote...    

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 should research what faulty logic is. Faulty logic is invalid logic. Valid logic dictates that the conclusion be a logical consequence of the premises. It doesn't require that the premises be true. As such, the reasoning behind the Catalyst is neither faulty nor stupid.

Zine2 wrote...     

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.

   

That's just your interpretation standing from a position of ignorance. A caveman could see a man teleport out in front of himself and think that the man is dead. Any sufficiently advanced technology can be seen as incomprehensible. What you regard as death may not be so, as you simply don't understand what happens.

Zine2 wrote...      

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

 

Again, that's barely more than your interpretation of the situation. In order to regard the logic as faulty you have to go beyond your own position and state facts, which you so adamantly love even if you don't understand it's meaning. Furthermore, even if it is true, that ascension is genocide and they are killing everyone, it still doesn't mean he's stupid or using faulty logic. He's just crazy. Those terms aren't interchangeable, just so you know.

Zine2 wrote...       

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

Thank you for providing me of a great example of faulty logic. 

[GodChildInTheMachine]

Lugaidster wrote...

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?

The fact that an argument's conclusion is the logical product of its premises does not necessarily mean it is a logically valid argument.

The Catalyst's argument employs at least two well known fallacies and is therefore a fallacious argument.

(a) Organic civilizations will eventually create synthetics
( The created will always rebel against their creators wiping *all* organic life in the process.

From then, he elaborates that this poses a problem, which becomes apparent because of the second premise, thus, he presents his solution:

© The reapers will come every so often to harvest and store advanced civilizations in reaper form leaving primitive organics alone.

The easiest fallacy to show in this argument is that of Begging the Question.

Wikipedia wrote...

The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof", or more generally denotes when an assumption is used, "in some form of the very proposition to be proved, as a premise from which to deduce it".[4] Thus, insofar as petitio principii refers to arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise, this fallacy consists of "begging" the listener to accept the "question" (proposition) before the labor of logic is undertaken. The fallacy may be committed in various ways.

I think if you look back at your argument you may find that it is guilty of this for obvious reasons.

[Zine2]

Re: Narrowmindedness

I do not attempt to lie or dissemble. Facts are simple facts.

Killing is the opposite of saving.

The Catalyst thinks it is saving people by genociding them. It is therefore commiting an act completely opposite to its stated purpose. It is therefore a complete idiot. Its logic engine is faulty.

If you cannot wrap your head around this simple concept, then you are an idiot.

It is not deep. There is no further meaning behind it. It simply means that the Catalyst is a menace that needs to be destroyed, because it cannot even tell the difference between killing and saving - while doing a lot of the former.

Boohoo for you, but it's not an interpretation. Again, when you get sent into the tubes (like Kelly was) it's not "Ascension". It's not a "Solution". It is murder. Plain and simple. That you cannot comprehend this and pretends it's an interpretation instead of fact only goes to show your own complete lack of logic.

Murder is murder. It is not subject to interpretation.

That you keep trying to dismiss my interpretation only goes on to reveal the conceit of your position: You believe NOTHING is fact. You believe that everything is mutable.

They are not. Facts are facts. Murder is murder. Genocide is genocide.

And all you're doing is to show why people hate the ending: The only way to justify it is to justify genocide.

Modifié par Zine2, 26 mars 2012 - 09:06 .

[Draconis6666]

It basically boils down to this

The Catalysts primary logic is as follows

Synthetic Life will AlWAYS eventually rise up against its creator and wipe out all organic life

If this is not true then his logic fails, if this is true (not that we can prove it is) then his logic on the problem is sound and is not faulty.

However his solution to the problem is only logically sound if the premise of the problem is false. His solution and the problem are logically contradictory. The solution is only sound if the problem is false and if the problem is false the then the solution is not sound because its a solution to an illogical problem. His solution itself is why his logic is faulty because it creates a situation in which neither can be true unless the other is false.

Modifié par Draconis6666, 26 mars 2012 - 09:06 .

[Lugaidster]

TheLastAwakening wrote...

I did not notice the front page changed..The problem still remains that the conclusion is false or uncertain. An uncertain conclusion makes the argument invalid. No quotations, however, I must borrow from the Op.

(a)Organic civilizations will eventually create synthetics- Tor F doesn't matter
(b)The created will always rebel against their creators wiping *all* organic life in the process.- T or F
Creating synthetics wipes out all organic life- False or uncertain = invalid

It's only invalid if the premises are true and the conclusion is false. If at least one of the premises is false, then the conclusion can be uncertain and it's still a valid argument. 

TheLastAwakening wrote... 

(a)Organic civilizations will eventually create synthetics- Tor F doesn't matter
(b)The created will always rebel against their creators wiping *all* organic life in the process.- T or F
[As a consequence] The reapers will come every so often to harvest and store advanced civilizations in reaper form leaving primitive organics alone.- True

This is only valid if the Catalyst considered one logical argument and if it did...It is stupid!

Not following you there with the highlighted part. English sometimes fails me as it's not may native language.

TheLastAwakening wrote...  
plus this:

Draconis6666 wrote...

Even in a purely static universe where everything is predetermined and these premises are true his logic still fails because the logic itself dictates that his solution will become part of the problem by premise B

That's just falling back to the part that his reasoning is circular which it's not. Because the conclusion doesn't prove, nor is intended to prove, the premise b. 

[Huami]

I am arrogant enough to say that the ending that would have garnered the best reception from All Mass Effect players is simplification.

#1 Discard Catalyst Conscious Entity (aka Starchild). Instead, reform reaper purpose to that of Star Trek's Borg species. A supreme force of aware synthetics consuming (through integration + indoctrination) space faring organic life to advance and increase it's own faction

#2 Discard Catalyst + Crucible as a signal beacon. Instead, reform Catalyst + Crucible combination to a weapon of mass destruction (allusion to Star Wars Death Star).

#3 End the reaper invasion using the newly acquired mega weapon, with victory party for shepard and in game playable epilogue (aka closure), if not proceed to 4

#4 End Mass Effect 3 with Catalyst + Crucible Death Star initialization headed by commander Shepard, now promoted to admiral shepard. With ending/ final battle to be released through DLC, if not

#5 Continue the war with the reapers through several DLC campaigns with the eventual ending where all reapers are annihilated. (Include story line development for Shepard's own personal life which includes his/her romance as well as rewards or repercussions for the players actions eg curing the genophage, uniting turians and krogans, cleaning the council, etc).

pretty much that, a few people might look into several variations but the meat has to be the same where the catalyst+crucible is actually a weapon, and the reapers no more than a race of consumers that periodically visit galaxies for harvesting

[AnttiV]

Let me burst in for a second. If we assume
a) The Catalyst is truly a true AI, not some VI construct.
that AI was created by organics and tasked with the problem
c) problem "organics WILL ALWAYS create synthetics that will then ALWAYS turn against their creator and destroy all life"

If those were the "rules" and it truly uses "computer logic" and not filtered with morality/ethics/what have you. Then the only logical outcome really is to apply "skynet-logic".

* synthetics will ALWAYS destroy their creators (and escalating, the whole universe) thus the logical conclusion is to prevent synthetics from being created. #1

* organics will ALWAYS eventually create synthetics #2

#2 -> #1 will create a single logical solution: destroy all organic life. Thus synthetics will never be created. If "preserve organic life" was never a mission parameter, then this is really the best logical solution.

If it was thus, then the logical path would be:
a) Destroy all synthetics along with all organic life
self-destruct (the AI *IS* a synthetic life-form in itself, so within those mission parameters, it MUST self-destruct)

Clearly this didn't happen, so apparently the logic is NOT that and there are more mission parameters that we're not told about.

[Mandemon]

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).

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.

  

Except in this case it would not be "pruning", it would be cutting down every tree that is at the certain height because it might fall down and hurt someone every 50 years. You leave the saplings on the ground but cut down all the full grown trees.

"Bad branch" in this case are the hostile synthethics, whcih I agree on. However, what Reapers do is to cut down entire tree before said bad branch can appear.

Lugaidster wrote... 

Edit:

I'm going to ellaborate a little more as people seem to keep getting the wrong idea.

Everyone thinks the Catalyst is stupid because his premises are false, those being:

(a) Organic civilizations will eventually create synthetics
( The created will always rebel against their creators wiping *all* organic life in the process.

From then, he elaborates that this poses a problem, which becomes apparent because of the second premise, thus, he presents his solution:

© The reapers will come every so often to harvest and store advanced civilizations in reaper form leaving primitive organics alone.

Whether or not you believe that the premises are true or false, that conclusion is a logical product of those premises. As such, you can at most regard the reaper as crazy, not stupid. That is because of how logic works. The only way for the reasoning of the Catalyst to be invalid is that both premises be true and the conclusion be false. But that's simply not possible because the conclusion is a correct product of the premises. It's not the only product of the premises, it's just correct. One example of this:

(1) 1 + 1 = 3
(2) 1 + 3 = 4
Therefore (=>)
(3) 1 + 1 + 1 = 4

The conclusion on it's own is wrong, but it is a valid product of the premises. As such, it is correct to assume that the logic reasoning behind that conclusion is correct, and even sound if you can accept the premises as valid:

T => T = T
F => T = T
F => F = T
T => F = F (this is the only case of invalid reasoning)

So going back to the reaper cases, the only way for the reaper to be stupid is that his premises are both true and his conclusion is false or incorrect based on the premises:

(a) and ( => ©

Making a truth table, the only possible way that is invalid is in this cases:

(a) = T, ( = T, © = F

All the other cases will yield valid and correct logical reasoning. 

This is not to say I agree with the Catalyst's conclusion. Let's go back to the example I made for one second:

(1) 1 + 1 = 3
(2) 1 + 3 = 4
Therefore (=>)
(3) 1 + 1 + 1 = 4 

Given the premises, (3) is a correct conclusion, but not the only one:

(4) 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 + 3, (5) 4 - 1 = 3

As you can see, (4) and (5) are also a fair conclusion. The example may seem simplistic, but it goes to show that there are many ways to arrive to a correct conclusion. Which means that the solution for the "problem" the reapers have may have more. 

You may regard the reaper as crazy, because his premises may be false to you, but crazy and stupid are not interchangeable. Trying to convince him that he's wrong is aking to proving those premises as false, which is impossible. It is worded in such a way that the only real solution to the reapers is destroying them or removing their sentient ability. Besides, he wouldn't be a very convincing antagonist if you agreed with him.

What you describe is valid logical conclusion, a "sound logical thinking". However, what the Catalyst does is to use Logical Fallancies.

For example:

Premise: Cutting peoples arm off is a crime.
Premise: Surgeons sometimes cut off arm from a patient.
Conclusion: Therefore, surgeons are criminals.

This is sound logical conclusion, but inheritly wrong because it generalises premises.

It also commits a logical fallancy called Affirming the consequent where 

• If P then Q
• P
• Therefore Q

It assumes that from premise P(Organic life will always create synthethic life) follows conclusion Q(Synthethic life will rebel and try to destroy all organic life). Just because statement P is true does not mean Q is true.

The Catalyst assumes that P => Q is always true, not giving a chance to argue that Q might be false and instead assuming it will always be true, thus making whole thing tautology which will always return true.

[Draconis6666]

[quote]Lugaidster wrote...

[quote]Draconis6666 wrote...

Even in a purely static universe where everything is predetermined and these premises are true his logic still fails because the logic itself dictates that his solution will become part of the problem by premise B

[/quote]

[/quote]

That's just falling back to the part that his reasoning is circular which it's not. Because the conclusion doesn't prove, nor is intended to prove, the premise b. 

[/quote]

No its proving that the logic is faulty, because his solution is either to a problem that is not a logicaly sound problem or the problem is logicaly sound and his solution to that problem is itself not logicaly sound. They are mutally exclusive, in fact by his own logic HE as a synthetic lifeform should rebel against his creators and destroy all life. Again if this is not true then the entire premise of the problem is not logicaly based but is base don possibilities.

[GodChildInTheMachine]

Lugaidster wrote...


That's just falling back to the part that his reasoning is circular which it's not. Because the conclusion doesn't prove, nor is intended to prove, the premise b. 

But the premise ( is both assumed by and inferred from the conclusion. Just because it cleverly masks this by not simply restating its premise doesn't mean that it's any less invalid.

[Lugaidster]

Draconis6666 wrote...

It basically boils down to this

The Catalysts primary logic is as follows

Synthetic Life will AlWAYS eventually rise up against its creator and wipe out all organic life

If this is not true then his logic fails, if this is true (not that we can prove it is) then his logic on the problem is sound and is not faulty.

That's where you're wrong. Valid logic reasoning doesn't require that the premises be true. It only requires that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is a logical result. You just stated that, hence his logic is not faulty. You can say that he's wrong, but that doesn't make his reasoning faulty or him stupid, just makes his premises false.

Draconis6666 wrote... 

However his solution to the problem is only logically sound if the premise of the problem is false. His solution and the problem are logically contradictory. The solution is only sound if the problem is false and if the problem is false then the solution is not sound. His solution itself is why his logic is faulty because it creates a situation in which neither can be true unless the other is false.

I'm not arguing that his logic is sound. If it were, no one would be fighting him. For his logic to be sound, his premises need to be true, which is the point of contention, as everyone can argue on whether they are or not. 

On the other hand, you are trying to shoehorn circular reasoning here, and he isn't using circular reasoning. The conclusion neither proves nor disproves the second premise, if you think it does, then you are oversimplifying. He's not trying to save humans or salarians or turians or whatever directly, although he's trying to preserve them somehow in reaper form. He's trying to save all future organic species that may come. "I'm reaping advanced organic civilizations in order to prevent them from killing primitive organic civilizations by "fumbling in ignorance" (creating synthetics)".

Again, the premises don't have to be true for his argument to be valid. It's simply not sound, because the premises aren't necessarily true. An unsound argument is not the same as a stupid argument. It's simply an argument founded on a different paradigm.

[Draconis6666]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...


That's just falling back to the part that his reasoning is circular which it's not. Because the conclusion doesn't prove, nor is intended to prove, the premise b. 

But the premise ( is both assumed by and inferred from the conclusion. Just because it cleverly masks this by not simply restating its premise doesn't mean that it's any less invalid.

Exactly and the conclusion itself does not solve the issue of premise ( because the conclusion is itself just an example of premise (a) that has not yet moved to premise ( but MUST do so eventualy by the logic used to come to the conclusion. The Logic that led the Catalyst to its conclusion ENSURES that not only the reapers but the Catalyst itself MUST one day destroy all organic life, because the logic itself is based on the fact that ( is always true and that makes them subject to the premise as well as synthetic life forms.

[Falcon509]

So why not just kill everything for good. No more killing can happen if everyone has been killed. Wipe out all life in the galaxy.

Problem solved. Reapers can go back to playing pong for eternity, or coming up with asinine logic to solve simple problems. Maybe they can develop a device to turn apples into oranges.

[Lugaidster]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...


That's just falling back to the part that his reasoning is circular which it's not. Because the conclusion doesn't prove, nor is intended to prove, the premise b. 

But the premise ( is both assumed by and inferred from the conclusion. Just because it cleverly masks this by not simply restating its premise doesn't mean that it's any less invalid.

A valid conclusion is one that logically follows the premises, it doesn't need that the premises be true. If you can say that *if* the premises are true *then* the conclusion is correct, then the argument is valid and doesn't use faulty or circular logic. Of couse that the premise b is assumed, you are making a conclusion based on it.

[Lugaidster]

Falcon509 wrote...

So why not just kill everything for good. No more killing can happen if everyone has been killed. Wipe out all life in the galaxy.

Problem solved. Reapers can go back to playing pong for eternity, or coming up with asinine logic to solve simple problems. Maybe they can develop a device to turn apples into oranges.

Then you aren't really saving future organics. If that's his goal, killing everyone out right would defeat it. That's why a cycle exists, as in life. What you are saying is similar to what some people say: "Why try to survive if I'm going to die some day, I might as well kill myself."

[Draconis6666]

Lugaidster wrote...

Draconis6666 wrote...

It basically boils down to this

The Catalysts primary logic is as follows

Synthetic Life will AlWAYS eventually rise up against its creator and wipe out all organic life

If this is not true then his logic fails, if this is true (not that we can prove it is) then his logic on the problem is sound and is not faulty.

That's where you're wrong. Valid logic reasoning doesn't require that the premises be true. It only requires that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is a logical result. You just stated that, hence his logic is not faulty. You can say that he's wrong, but that doesn't make his reasoning faulty or him stupid, just makes his premises false.

Draconis6666 wrote... 

However his solution to the problem is only logically sound if the premise of the problem is false. His solution and the problem are logically contradictory. The solution is only sound if the problem is false and if the problem is false then the solution is not sound. His solution itself is why his logic is faulty because it creates a situation in which neither can be true unless the other is false.

I'm not arguing that his logic is sound. If it were, no one would be fighting him. For his logic to be sound, his premises need to be true, which is the point of contention, as everyone can argue on whether they are or not. 

On the other hand, you are trying to shoehorn circular reasoning here, and he isn't using circular reasoning. The conclusion neither proves nor disproves the second premise, if you think it does, then you are oversimplifying. He's not trying to save humans or salarians or turians or whatever directly, although he's trying to preserve them somehow in reaper form. He's trying to save all future organic species that may come. "I'm reaping advanced organic civilizations in order to prevent them from killing primitive organic civilizations by "fumbling in ignorance" (creating synthetics)".

Again, the premises don't have to be true for his argument to be valid. It's simply not sound, because the premises aren't necessarily true. An unsound argument is not the same as a stupid argument. It's simply an argument founded on a different paradigm.

No it doesnt make his logic circular because its not it makes it faulty because its based on logical 
Fallacies which imply faulty logic. The logic of how it arrives at the problem of (a) and ( can be true, and its solution of © can be true but its solution of © cannot be said to be logicaly a valid conclusion if (a) and ( are true, because © is done to prevent ( but © itself ensures ( by the logic he is using. Its faulty.

The point is not that the conclusion proves or disproves ( the point is that © is not a logical answer to ( and that is why its faulty logic there is no circular logic invloved really its simply an invalid logical response to the conclusion.

[Necrotron]

Lugaidster wrote...

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.

Obvious troll is obvious? Did you even bother to read?

Apologies.  I disagree with your original post's assessment and I wanted to write out why, but after reading sooooooooo many of these threads, I was starting to lack motivation to read/anlayze/and 'yet again' politely disagree in a verbose manner.

So, I found one post I agreed with and stated my disinterest in this thread.  Sorry if that falls into the 'troll' category.  I'm not much of a forumite, so I still don't really know what a 'troll' is.

Anyways, carry on!  Apologies if my lack of extensive commenting offended!

Modifié par Bathaius, 26 mars 2012 - 09:23 .

[Aerevane]

There's still a difference between something being logically true and something being empirically true. That makes the reasoning on itself not true, but only logically true. It's a shame the Reapers never got past their first lesson in logic, since it's usually treated there (which is an interesting subject until you get to Frege).

On itself it's not perse wrong to act according to this logic - we could say that reason stands above empirical observations and thus empirical observations are irrelevant. That would have some other repercussions though...

Modifié par Aerevane, 26 mars 2012 - 09:24 .