695 réponses à ce sujet

[Draconis6666]

Lugaidster wrote...

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."

See thats the point though, the premises he has based his solution on if true or not, he believes they are, and if they are then his solution WILL destroy all organic life, he is not saving organic existance with his solution he is ensuring its destruction at some point.

[Lugaidster]

Draconis6666 wrote...

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.

The only way that is true, is if organic life is itself on a timer. As far as things go on the game, the Catalyst regards organic life as an accident that occurs spontaneously, chaos. Why will a random and spontaneous event stop ocurring in the future?

Draconis6666 wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

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."

See thats the point though, the premises he has based his solution on if true or not, he believes they are, and if they are then his solution WILL destroy all organic life, he is not saving organic existance with his solution he is ensuring its destruction at some point. 

As I said, that's only true if you assume that organic life will cease to continue appearing. The catalyst not only doesn't assume that, he assumes the contrary by stating that organic life represents chaos (a spontaneous event that will occur regardless).

Modifié par Lugaidster, 26 mars 2012 - 09:31 .

[Zine2]

Bathaius wrote...

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!

Nah, this guy is seriously arguing that we should attempt to understand the Reapers because they don't operate on the same basic morality as us.

Which is again completely and totally irrelevant from a practical perspective. I don't care why Hitler thought it was a great idea to genocide the Jews (or why the Brat AI wants to genocide the galaxy). Any rational sentient being would just want to shoot him for his appalling acts of mass-murder.

But hey, when you employ "everything is just an interpretation, there are no such things as facts!" as your only defense, this is the sort of insane conclusions you'll reach.

[Draconis6666]

[quote]Lugaidster wrote...

[quote]Draconis6666 wrote...

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.

[/quote]

The only way that is true, is if organic life is itself on a timer. As far as things go on the game, the Catalyst regards organic life as an accident that occurs spontaneously, chaos. Why will a random and spontaneous event stop ocurring in the future?

[quote]Draconis6666 wrote...

[quote]Lugaidster wrote...

[quote]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.[/quote]

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."

[/quote] 

As I said, that's only true if you assume that organic life will cease to continue appearing.

[/quote]

If that is not true then the problem itself is not a valid problem. When you consider the fact that time is relative to the catalyst as an unaging entitiy it would not matter if organic life was wiped out for 10,000 years and then returned there is no reason for it to need a solution if that is true. The only reason for it to need a solution to the problem is if it believe all organic life would be wiped out forever.

Modifié par Draconis6666, 26 mars 2012 - 09:28 .

[TheLastAwakening]

Subscribed to thread. Be back later, sorry if spam. Don't get defeated Lugaidster before I comeback, lol-jk.

[Artoz96]

Zine2 wrote...

Bathaius wrote...

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!

Nah, this guy is seriously arguing that we should attempt to understand the Reapers because they don't operate on the same basic morality as us.

Which is again completely and totally irrelevant from a practical perspective. I don't care why Hitler thought it was a great idea to genocide the Jews (or why the Brat AI wants to genocide the galaxy). Any rational sentient being would just want to shoot him for his appalling acts of mass-murder.

But hey, when you employ "everything is just an interpretation, there are no such things as facts!" as your only defense, this is the sort of insane conclusions you'll reach.

Ohhh practical perspective? From practical perspective Sol IS SMALLER than Earth. For God sake stop this bull****.

You don't care about Hitler idea? Any rational sentient being? So what the **** all this WW2 was about?! You think it was a joke?

Man, you are REALLY ignorant.

[Lugaidster]

Draconis6666 wrote...

If that is not true then the problem itself is not a valid problem. When you consider the fact that time is relative to the catalyst as an unaging entitiy it would not matter if organic life was wiped out for 10,000 years and then returned there is no reason for it to need a solution if that is true. The only reason for it to need a solution to the problem is if it believe all organic life would be wiped out forever.

He believes that it will happen because of inaction. This whole theme is based on Technological Singularity. If Technological Singularity is achieved, then no organic live will ever be allowed to evolve or ever get past of the mere accident, which in and of itself is his problem. 

Think of it as being both ends of a scale (synth on one side, and orgs on the other), that he believes will 
progresively tip to the side of the synthetics to the point where there's just synthetics living in the galaxy preventing organic life from ever evolving again. He believes that his action (reseting galactic state) will maintain the "balance" in this scale. At no point does he believe that his solution is perfect, but that it's preferable to a situation in which he's not interfering. Think of his solution as one where the scale continiously swings from one side to the other. A perfect solution would be one where the scale is fixed in the middle, apparently, his best attempt at doing that is reducing the ammount of swing from one side to the next.

[Lugaidster]

TheLastAwakening wrote...

Subscribed to thread. Be back later, sorry if spam. Don't get defeated Lugaidster before I comeback, lol-jk.

Haha, no prob

[Scyldemort]

The star-brat's logic is totally valid if we're talking squirrel-logic.

[GodChildInTheMachine]

Let me restate your argument this way by separating the premises and adding one which is unstated.

(a) All sufficiently advanced biological life will create artificial life
( All artificial life is superior to biological life
© All artificial life is hostile to biological life
(d) Intervention is necessary to prevent the destruction of all biological life
(e) Therefore, (the) intervention (of the reapers) is necessary to prevent the destruction of all biological life

I feel that your original argument utilizes an implied or unstated premise. Of course, you could simply make the premise (d) the conclusion of the above argument, which may well be both logically valid and sound. However, I think it is fair to say that;

© Without intervention, artificial life will destroy all biological life

Is a few logical steps removed from:

© Unless the Reapers direct the technological advancement of galactic society so that they are easy to conquer, and destroys the advanced galactic society every 50,000 years while leaving primitive biological life, artificial life will destroy all organic life

I'd say that there are at least a few implied premises in any argument which has that proposition and only two premises to support it. And that it is indeed *stupid* to arrive at that conclusion via a reductive argument. (Not you, the Catalyst)

Either the argument has to be expanded in order for its premises to lead logically to its conclusion, or the argument is in fact a tautological error like Mandemon suggested.

[Lugaidster]

Zine2 wrote...

Nah, this guy is seriously arguing that we should attempt to understand the Reapers because they don't operate on the same basic morality as us.

Which is again completely and totally irrelevant from a practical perspective. I don't care why Hitler thought it was a great idea to genocide the Jews (or why the Brat AI wants to genocide the galaxy). Any rational sentient being would just want to shoot him for his appalling acts of mass-murder.

But hey, when you employ "everything is just an interpretation, there are no such things as facts!" as your only defense, this is the sort of insane conclusions you'll reach.

I'm argueing what I believe is a misconception given that both the definitions of faulty and circular logic don't fit the profile of the Catalyst's reasoning. If you don't intend to undestand his reasoning, why partake in the argument then?

[Zine2]

Artoz96 wrote...
Ohhh practical perspective? From practical perspective Sol IS SMALLER than Earth. For God sake stop this bull****.

And from a practical perspective your post makes no sense. You seem to be just directing hostility with no reason or rational thought. Therefore, your ranting is useless and can be ignored.

You don't care about Hitler idea? Any rational sentient being? So what the **** all this WW2 was about?! You think it was a joke?

Man, you are REALLY ignorant.

On the contrary, I am pointing out that genocide is very serious, and that any attempt to call it otherwise is an enormous disservice. But in the grand scheme of things, why should people care about how "right" Hitler's logic is for exterminating the Jews in his own twisted mind? It's irrelevant. It's his actions that count. He's a mass-murderer. And any rational sentient should have shot the monster and saved a lot of lives.

So really, I don't get your ranting other than it seems to be based on throwing fire all over the place without understanding who's making what argument. No matter, don't care much for your spittle.

[Flextt]

I still can't get over the simplest solution: Just kill all synthetics. The Reapers could have come AND gone unseen into the Perseus Veil, kill one of the most feared species of our cycle and prevented a singularity for now. But then, even their current solution is only temporary.

[Draconis6666]

Lugaidster wrote...

Draconis6666 wrote...

If that is not true then the problem itself is not a valid problem. When you consider the fact that time is relative to the catalyst as an unaging entitiy it would not matter if organic life was wiped out for 10,000 years and then returned there is no reason for it to need a solution if that is true. The only reason for it to need a solution to the problem is if it believe all organic life would be wiped out forever.

He believes that it will happen because of inaction. This whole theme is based on Technological Singularity. If Technological Singularity is achieved, then no organic live will ever be allowed to evolve or ever get past of the mere accident, which in and of itself is his problem. 

Think of it as being both ends of a scale (synth on one side, and orgs on the other), that he believes will 
progresively tip to the side of the synthetics to the point where there's just synthetics living in the galaxy preventing organic life from ever evolving again. He believes that his action (reseting galactic state) will maintain the "balance" in this scale. At no point does he believe that his solution is perfect, but that it's preferable to a situation in which he's not interfering. Think of his solution as one where the scale continiously swings from one side to the other. A perfect solution would be one where the scale is fixed in the middle, apparently, his best attempt at doing that is reducing the ammount of swing from one side to the next.

But there is no reason for him to even come to the solution he does, its the least logical of all possible solutions because its directly effected by the problem itself.  And realisticaly even in this case he is guilty of faulty logic because by the logic he uses to arrive at the problem he should logicaly then go kill all organic life himself to hold true to that logic, he himself defys his own problem.

The only way his logic makes sense is if he created his solution to ensure that the problem is true, that is the only way logicaly the entire thing fits together. (a) is true ( is true so I will create © that will eventualy ensure (  proving the problem true. In this case the logic fits. Otherwise there is no reason for it logicaly to arrive at the solution it does over other solutions the only other way it works is if there are other premises included into the problem that are not stated that alter the problem so that © becomes the only option.

[Zine2]

Lugaidster wrote...
I'm argueing what I believe is a misconception given that both the definitions of faulty and circular logic don't fit the profile of the Catalyst's reasoning. If you don't intend to undestand his reasoning, why partake in the argument then?

Because ultimately it's the actions that matter. 

Not the Reaper being a deluded idiot creating its own self-justifications through imaginary logical constructs.

Again, I am not questioning the specifics of the Reaper's internal logic. It can have whatever screwed up logic it wants in its head.

I am pointing out that its internal logic is completely and utterly irrelevant, because it is being judged not by its own internal logic - but by people in the "real" world; be it the players of the game or the characers within the game.

And by any measure of judgement, its logic is faulty and based on complete fantasies. It is an idiot. It murdered billions based on its idiocy.

[Bob3terd]

They dont prune, they exterminate, they could limit the technology of organics to keep them in the dark ages, just cull synthetics, warn or force organics not to create them.
More over the star child has to be the most moronic irony resistant being in existance he is exactly what he is trying to stop, he is the problem he is trying to resolve. He must have been created so logically he probably "harvested"/ wiped out his creators.

Modifié par Bob3terd, 26 mars 2012 - 09:53 .

[GodChildInTheMachine]

Also, I think that people define it as Circular Reasoning because they are separating the premises from the argument. The only way to "prove" any one of the premises is through Circular Reasoning.

i.e. "All artificial life is hostile to all biological life. The fact that artificial life is hostile to biological life is proof of this."

edit - The only argument that I can remember the Catalyst clearly stating is, "The Created will always rebel against their Creators."

This is an argument that, which taken on its own, can ony be "proven" or supporting through Circular Reasoning.

Modifié par GodChildInTheMachine, 26 mars 2012 - 10:00 .

[Kreid]

Lugaidster wrote...
He believes that it will happen because of inaction. This whole theme is based on Technological Singularity. If Technological Singularity is achieved, then no organic live will ever be allowed to evolve or ever get past of the mere accident, which in and of itself is his problem. 

Think of it as being both ends of a scale (synth on one side, and orgs on the other), that he believes will 
progresively tip to the side of the synthetics to the point where there's just synthetics living in the galaxy preventing organic life from ever evolving again. He believes that his action (reseting galactic state) will maintain the "balance" in this scale. At no point does he believe that his solution is perfect, but that it's preferable to a situation in which he's not interfering. Think of his solution as one where the scale continiously swings from one side to the other. A perfect solution would be one where the scale is fixed in the middle, apparently, his best attempt at doing that is reducing the ammount of swing from one side to the next.

It's not about whther his logic makes sense or not, it does makes sense lookin at "the big picture" so to speak, but it is completely futile, he's creating a never-ending cycle of evolutive stagnation at a Galaxy-wide scale, organics rise to play along the same act over and over and then are "preserved" as reapers taht have not other purpose than perpetuating the cycle, basically it's just as bad as a technological singularity because despite the rise of organics, they are never able to achieve their full potential as civilizations.

There are many ways the Catalyst would be able to do this in a much less horrible fashion, like, acting as a peacekeeper and intervine only if technological singularity is about to happen, but no, he'd rather commit genocide and impose his "acension" to developing racer, meh.

[Luzarius]

This picture doesn't acknowledge the difference between harvesting advanced civilizations and leaving early primitve civilizations alone.

(Obviously whoever made this picture didn't play the game or didn't pay attention to detail).

Luzarius
www.twitch.tv/luzarius
"no death ruleset"

Modifié par Luzarius, 26 mars 2012 - 09:59 .

[Zine2]

It doesn't matter. The pic still describes quite adequately the stupendous level of fail in the Reaper's logic.

"I will murder you to save you" does not compute.

Modifié par Zine2, 26 mars 2012 - 10:00 .

[Lugaidster]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Let me restate your argument this way by separating the premises and adding one which is unstated.

(a) All sufficiently advanced biological life will create artificial life
( All artificial life is superior to biological life
© All artificial life is hostile to biological life
(d) Intervention is necessary to prevent the destruction of all biological life
(e) Therefore, (the) intervention (of the reapers) is necessary to prevent the destruction of all biological life

I feel that your original argument utilizes an implied or unstated premise. Of course, you could simply make the premise (d) the conclusion of the above argument, which may well be both logically valid and sound.

Ok, first, I tried to stay as true to the premises that the catalyst explicitely mentioned as possible. Second, if a premise is a valid conclusion of other premises, then it can be implied. Third, it would be valid argument, but not sound as that would require that the previous premises be true, that's the whole issue with many people. For an argument to be valid, it doesn't require that his premises be true, just that the conclusion be a logical  result of them.

As such, if we agree that (d) is a logical conclusion of the other three premises, then we can remove it from the list as it is implied. Which would lead us to:

(a) All sufficiently advanced biological life will create artificial life
( All artificial life is superior to biological life
© All artificial life is hostile to biological life
Therefore, 
(e)  (the) intervention (of the reapers) is necessary to prevent the destruction of all biological life

GodChildInTheMachine wrote... 

However, I think it is fair to say that;

© Without intervention, artificial life will destroy all biological life // I think you meant (d)?

Is a few logical steps removed from:

© Unless the Reapers direct the technological advancement of galactic society so that they are easy to conquer, and destroys the advanced galactic society every 50,000 years while leaving primitive biological life, artificial life will destroy all organic life // again, (d)?

I'd say that there are at least a few implied premises in any argument which has that proposition and only two premises to support it. And that it is indeed *stupid* to arrive at that conclusion via a reductive argument. (Not you, the Catalyst)

Either the argument has to be expanded in order for its premises to lead logically to its conclusion, or the argument is in fact a tautological error like Mandemon suggested.

I beg to differ. Sure there's *some* implied information there, but that hardly makes the conclusion an ilogical outcome of the premises already stated. The only premise I left out that could add independent information to the conclusion is that the Catalyst regards organic life as a random event (chaos). That however, doesn't alter the conclusion or it's validity.

Again, I'm not discussing that the argument the Catalyst proposes is sound, as that would require the premises to be true. An unsound but valid argument doesn't qualify as stupid. It merely qualifies as crazy. The only way for it to be invalid, hence stupid, is for the conclusion not be a logical outcome of the premises. The conclusion may not be the only conclusion that makes sense, but if it is a correct conclusion given the premises, then it's a valid argument. 

[Yusta1]

Bender reaction is mine too.

[Luzarius]

Zine2 wrote...

It doesn't matter. The pic still describes quite adequately the stupendous level of fail in the Reaper's logic.

"I will murder you to save you" does not compute.

Well in the game the reapers only harvested advanced civilizations. This means there is a window where a young civilization can go unharvested.

If the threshold of AI development exceeds beyond 50,000 years it may produce a HUGE synthetic threat of unimagineable proportion.  Try to understand the enemy presented in game.

Like I said, whoever made that picture needs to update it at least.

Luzarius
www.twitch.tv/luzarius
"no death ruleset"

Modifié par Luzarius, 26 mars 2012 - 10:09 .

[Monochrome Wench]

The relay network and the reapers guiding organics down a specific developmental path does not invalidate anything the child says, in fact it supports it.

The Repears create the relay network and leave the tech around to develop a specific type of FTL travel because it will mean that organics will find the relay network and the citadel BEFORE they develop problem AI. If everyone had to find out all the FTL stuff on there own, some species may never find it before their AI reacehes signularity and the AI then develops a FTL system.

[Artoz96]

Flextt wrote...

I still can't get over the simplest solution: Just kill all synthetics. The Reapers could have come AND gone unseen into the Perseus Veil, kill one of the most feared species of our cycle and prevented a singularity for now. But then, even their current solution is only temporary.

Geth are no the only AI we know. Remember ME1 Moon misson where AI rebeled. Or project "Overlord" in ME2. And these are only human examples.  Reapers fighting the cause not the consequences. And the cause is advance civilization.