695 réponses à ce sujet

[GodChildInTheMachine]

Artoz96 wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

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.

That doesn't put brakes on the rest of the galactic society. It works only on a case by case. It could've worked in this case, but then again, there's EDI. And who knows where else there's another AI. It would require active monitoring revealing their true purpose at some point and allowing organics to prepare in case the reapers ever show up again, defeating their ultimate goal by allowing you to counter them. 

Obviously their solution isn't perfect as evidenced by the Catalyst when he sees you and states that his solution won't work again. 

I disagree with what I have boldened. The Catalyst itself already posessed the technical capacity to impliment any one of the solutions we are offered at the end of the game. It had them prepared ahead of time, after all, and was just waiting for someone to stumble in and press the button.

Since the Catalyst resides in the Citadel, the Citadel is both the center of galactic society and nearly invulnerable, and the Catalyst has already invested enormous amounts of resources into its own solution, I don't see any logical reason it couldn't use the alternatives it gives Shepard at any time.

You don't see logical reason? But you are absolutely shure that you MUST see the logical reason? So you say that you can logically describe eferything? So you know everything?

See what I am talking about? In your description if you don't see logical reasos so it is illogical. But that means that you know everything and it is false statement.

How does the Catalyst's argument look using the logic you just applied to what I said?

Where do you infer that what I said implies I know everything? Are we even on the same planet anymore? I thought we were discussing logical arguments here, yet yours looks like:

(a) I don't see a logical reason the Catalyst couldn't have employed an alternative solution
Therefore
( I am sure that there must be a logical reason
Therefore
© I assume that there is a logical solution to everything
Therefore
(d) i assume that I know everything

Dude, seriously?

In the spirit of this thread, let me restate what I said above in a logical argument so it isn't so hard to understand.

(a) The Catalyst possesses great technical capacity and resources
( The Catalyst assumes that without its intervention, all organic life will be destroyed
© The Catalyst invested a great amount of resources into creating a solution for this problem
(d) The Catalyst foresaw the failure of its solution
(e) The Catalyst prepared alternatives to this solution
(f) The Catalyst either has the capacity to execute these alternatives, or it can acquire that capacity
Therefore
(g) The Catalyst could have chosen an alternative solution instead of its original one

You want to tell me how that isn't logically sound AND valid?

[Lugaidster]

AnttiV wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...
He believes synthetics will destroy *all* organic life if he doesn't interfere by reaping *advanced* organic life. That's the big point here. There's a difference between *all*, *advanced* and *primitive* here, and that difference is what makes the conclusion not be a result of circular logic. 

If that's the logic, then by that same logic the reapers should eventually destroy him and *all* organic life. And he, being a synthetic lifeform in himself, should eventually destroy *all* organic life.

If you're presented with a problem that "cars kill *all* people, eventually" and tasked to get rid of the cars (regardless if you're told to preserve life or not) the logical solution IS NOT to create another, bigger car to run over the humans that can make cars. just because that presents the problem of YOUR car eventually killing everything. It just isn't logical. (Add to that that you yourself are a car, which should make YOU eventually run over all the people by that same logic, so why wouldn't you self-destruct, if your mission was to prevent that?)

If you want to get technical, then we have two issues. If he's synthetic, you don't know whether he already killed organic life in a past event on another place or galaxy. For all we know, this could be his current solution and at some point in the future he could simply say **** it. It's all speculation, furthermore, he might not even be purely synthetic, given that the reapers absorb or do something with organics. So if he doesn't view himself as a synthetic, he's not contradicting himself.

All I'm saying is that given his premises, his conclusion (and thus, his solution) aren't logically invalid or stupid. We can all argue that his premises (both explicit and implied) are wrong, false, whatever. But that doesn't address the criticism I've seen many times repeated. There's no use of circular logic there, and the logic while not sound (because the premises aren't verifyibly true), is valid because the conclusion is a valid logical result of the premises. 

[Lugaidster]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

In the spirit of this thread, let me restate what I said above in a logical argument so it isn't so hard to understand.

(a) The Catalyst possesses great technical capacity and resources
( The Catalyst assumes that without its intervention, all organic life will be destroyed
© The Catalyst invested a great amount of resources into creating a solution for this problem
(d) The Catalyst foresaw the failure of its solution
(e) The Catalyst prepared alternatives to this solution
(f) The Catalyst either has the capacity to execute these alternatives, or it can acquire that capacity
Therefore
(g) The Catalyst could have chosen an alternative solution instead of its original one

You want to tell me how that isn't logically sound AND valid?

In the spirit of this thread, it doesn't matter if it is sound (nor do I think it is). We aren't discussing that since we can't verify that the premises are true, if we can't do that, we can't discuss the soundness. (BTW, a sound argument is a valid argument.)

But continuing, that is a valid argument but really addresses nothing. The premise (e) is an assumption on your part, as nowhere in the conversation is it implied that he previously prepared alternatives. If he didn't prepare for alternatives (which is up for discussion if you want), he couldn't have chosen an alternative.

[emperoralku]

Lugaidster wrote...

If you want to get technical, then we have two issues. If he's synthetic, you don't know whether he already killed organic life in a past event on another place or galaxy. For all we know, this could be his current solution and at some point in the future he could simply say **** it. It's all speculation, furthermore, he might not even be purely synthetic, given that the reapers absorb or do something with organics. So if he doesn't view himself as a synthetic, he's not contradicting himself.

All I'm saying is that given his premises, his conclusion (and thus, his solution) aren't logically invalid or stupid. We can all argue that his premises (both explicit and implied) are wrong, false, whatever. But that doesn't address the criticism I've seen many times repeated. There's no use of circular logic there, and the logic while not sound (because the premises aren't verifyibly true), is valid because the conclusion is a valid logical result of the premises. 

According to his statement of created always rebelling against the creators, the created do not necessarily need to be synthetic, merely created by something else.

[Lugaidster]

emperoralku wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

If you want to get technical, then we have two issues. If he's synthetic, you don't know whether he already killed organic life in a past event on another place or galaxy. For all we know, this could be his current solution and at some point in the future he could simply say **** it. It's all speculation, furthermore, he might not even be purely synthetic, given that the reapers absorb or do something with organics. So if he doesn't view himself as a synthetic, he's not contradicting himself.

All I'm saying is that given his premises, his conclusion (and thus, his solution) aren't logically invalid or stupid. We can all argue that his premises (both explicit and implied) are wrong, false, whatever. But that doesn't address the criticism I've seen many times repeated. There's no use of circular logic there, and the logic while not sound (because the premises aren't verifyibly true), is valid because the conclusion is a valid logical result of the premises. 

According to his statement of created always rebelling against the creators, the created do not necessarily need to be synthetic, merely created by something else.

So if you want to continue being technical he might have already rebeled against his creator. And killed him. And maybe regreted it, which would be one reason why he's trying to fix it. It doesn't really matter.

[emperoralku]

Lugaidster wrote...

So if you want to continue being technical he might have already rebeled against his creator. And killed him. And maybe regreted it, which would be one reason why he's trying to fix it. It doesn't really matter.

It does, because assuming the above is true, his solution to created rebelling against creators is to create his own created so they can rebel against him...

Modifié par emperoralku, 26 mars 2012 - 11:06 .

[Artoz96]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Artoz96 wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

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.

That doesn't put brakes on the rest of the galactic society. It works only on a case by case. It could've worked in this case, but then again, there's EDI. And who knows where else there's another AI. It would require active monitoring revealing their true purpose at some point and allowing organics to prepare in case the reapers ever show up again, defeating their ultimate goal by allowing you to counter them. 

Obviously their solution isn't perfect as evidenced by the Catalyst when he sees you and states that his solution won't work again. 

I disagree with what I have boldened. The Catalyst itself already posessed the technical capacity to impliment any one of the solutions we are offered at the end of the game. It had them prepared ahead of time, after all, and was just waiting for someone to stumble in and press the button.

Since the Catalyst resides in the Citadel, the Citadel is both the center of galactic society and nearly invulnerable, and the Catalyst has already invested enormous amounts of resources into its own solution, I don't see any logical reason it couldn't use the alternatives it gives Shepard at any time.

You don't see logical reason? But you are absolutely shure that you MUST see the logical reason? So you say that you can logically describe eferything? So you know everything?

See what I am talking about? In your description if you don't see logical reasos so it is illogical. But that means that you know everything and it is false statement.

How does the Catalyst's argument look using the logic you just applied to what I said?

Where do you infer that what I said implies I know everything? Are we even on the same planet anymore? I thought we were discussing logical arguments here, yet yours looks like:

(a) I don't see a logical reason the Catalyst couldn't have employed an alternative solution
Therefore
( I am sure that there must be a logical reason
Therefore
© I assume that there is a logical solution to everything
Therefore
(d) i assume that I know everything

Dude, seriously?

In the spirit of this thread, let me restate what I said above in a logical argument so it isn't so hard to understand.

(a) The Catalyst possesses great technical capacity and resources
( The Catalyst assumes that without its intervention, all organic life will be destroyed
© The Catalyst invested a great amount of resources into creating a solution for this problem
(d) The Catalyst foresaw the failure of its solution
(e) The Catalyst prepared alternatives to this solution
(f) The Catalyst either has the capacity to execute these alternatives, or it can acquire that capacity
Therefore
(g) The Catalyst could have chosen an alternative solution instead of its original one

You want to tell me how that isn't logically sound AND valid?

Dude it is simple. You argue that Catalyst acts illogically. And one of your statements for why is that - is that because you don't see logical reason for it actions, or you mean smth else and just wanted to share with us your impossibily to understand why it do as it do? 

And to the seconf part...from "b" to "g"...  Catalyst didn't say that his solution ia about saving organics. It's solution to CHAOS. Catalyst foresaw not failure but another solution. Another solution, presumably, was connected with the fact that smb would be able to Create Crucible and connect it with Catalyst.  He says that the fact that Shepard stays here means that solution dont work anymore and that he find another solution.

So... ball on your side

[Artoz96]

emperoralku wrote...

Artoz96 wrote...

emperoralku wrote...

AnttiV wrote...

If that's the logic, then by that same logic the reapers should eventually destroy him and *all* organic life. And he, being a synthetic lifeform in himself, should eventually destroy *all* organic life.

If you're presented with a problem that "cars kill *all* people, eventually" and tasked to get rid of the cars (regardless if you're told to preserve life or not) the logical solution IS NOT to create another, bigger car to run over the humans that can make cars. just because that presents the problem of YOUR car eventually killing everything. It just isn't logical. (Add to that that you yourself are a car, which should make YOU eventually run over all the people by that same logic, so why wouldn't you self-destruct, if your mission was to prevent that?)

Bazinga! We have a winner.

Nope. If you want smth that don't mean it to be fact.

Nice try but you don't actually counter the argument in bold.

Nice try to conter my argument with your contr argument, but you faild, try again

[AnttiV]

Lugaidster wrote...

If you want to get technical, then we have two issues. If he's synthetic, you don't know whether he already killed organic life in a past event on another place or galaxy. For all we know, this could be his current solution and at some point in the future he could simply say **** it. It's all speculation, furthermore, he might not even be purely synthetic, given that the reapers absorb or do something with organics. So if he doesn't view himself as a synthetic, he's not contradicting himself.

All I'm saying is that given his premises, his conclusion (and thus, his solution) aren't logically invalid or stupid. We can all argue that his premises (both explicit and implied) are wrong, false, whatever. But that doesn't address the criticism I've seen many times repeated. There's no use of circular logic there, and the logic while not sound (because the premises aren't verifyibly true), is valid because the conclusion is a valid logical result of the premises. 

You're right, we don't know if he has already killed organic life in the past, in which case that would validate his reasoning, but invalidate the reason he's doing this in the first place. If life can go on after "synthetics destroy all life", why all this? Where's the problem in that case? If he draws the line in a single galaxy, that is just unnecessary simplification and, really, just stupid. If he came from another galaxy that had its organic life wiped out (by him), that in itself validates the fact that intergalactic travel is possible, and that one day organics could re-populate said galaxy. Thus - no problem. If he didn't come from "somewhere else" and just wiped THIS galaxy clean in the distant past, that invalidates the whole problem. If life can "re-appear" after being wiped out, his whole "protect the life by wiping it regularly" just becomes "being a dick to the civilizations".

but, ignoring that. What I don't understand is this. By what logic/mission objectives did he arrive from "all synthetic life will eventually destroy all organic life" to a solution to "wipe out advanced organic life on regular basis". Because, let's face it, it doesn't get rid of the problem, ever. By the very meaning of regularity, it just postpones the fact every time by another 50,000 years. Add to that that if what he says is true about the Citadel and the relays, he essentially creates the time cycle himself, to regulate the appearance of synthetic life by guiding the civilizations to develop the way they do. If that really is true what he says, that the relays/reapers are his solution to the synthetic problem, the answer that he seeks can NOT be to stop it from happening. (to be fair, he never explicitly states this, we don't really know if he even wants it to stop). 

The point is what he does cannot logically be the conclusion if the goal is just to stop synthetic life from destroying the galaxy. 

[Draconis6666]

Lugaidster wrote...

Draconis6666 wrote...

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.

Two things, First, you still seem to be fixated that the conclusion exists for the sole purpose of proving the second premise to be true. That's false because he's not creating the problem, he believes that the problem exists. Furthermore, his solution doesn't cause the problem to exist in the first place. He believes synthetics will destroy *all* organic life if he doesn't interfere by reaping *advanced* organic life. That's the big point here. There's a difference between *all*, *advanced* and *primitive* here, and that difference is what makes the conclusion not be a result of circular logic. 

Second, what do are you refering to when saying the least logical of all possible solutions? What are the other possible solutions? He does state that the Crucible changes him, meaning that given the premises, he's willing to accept other conclusions, but that doesn't change the fact that the old solution, while extreme, was still the result of valid logical reasoning (not sound, but valid).

No see the point is not that the conclusion exists for the sole purpose of proving the second premise, the point is that the conclusion itself is effected by the second premise. Your right he is not creating the problem, the point is that his solution is not a solution because by the premise he operates under the solution itself is another example of the problem. Either he has created synthetic life knowing that at some point it too will fulfill premise ( or he has created organic life that will never follow premise ( proving premise ( itself to be untrue His solution itself is not logical because of this, a more logical solution based on his premise would be to create unintelligent drone robots to do the reaping not intelligent synthetic life.

Your right to a poing that it is a result of logical reasoning but its faulty logical reasoning. Not the reasoning of the premises themselves or their need for a solution the fault lies in the logic surrounding the selection of the solution. If the purpose is simply to destroy advanced organic life to spare primitive organic life destruction there is no point in making the reapers sentient at all. Logicaly they should be non sentient because then they would not fall under the scope of premise (, instead he for some reason made them sentient when there is no reason to do so and in doing so he is essentialy doing exactly what he states as the problem he has created the solution for.

Even then again his logic is in question because his logic absolves himself from the equation, by his logic he himself should one day destroy all organic life because he is a synthetic lifeform, he is attempting to create a solution to a problem that he himself is a part of simply by being a synthetic lifeform. He bases his logic on a premise that he himself contradicts, unless he fully realizes that he too will one day destroy all organic life in which case as a machine intelligence there is no reason for his cycle at all because if he can already conclude that he too will do as predicted there is logicaly no reason to fight against that outcome if you are looking at it from a pure logical viewpoint.

[Lugaidster]

emperoralku wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

So if you want to continue being technical he might have already rebeled against his creator. And killed him. And maybe regreted it, which would be one reason why he's trying to fix it. It doesn't really matter.

It does, because assuming the above is true, his solution to created rebelling against creators is to create his own created so they can rebel against him...

The reason why it is irrelevant is that the only thing we know for certain that affects his reasoning in any comprehensible way are the premises. Whether they are true or false to us, doesn't matter to him, so his logical reasoning doesn't depend on them being true. Unless theres another premise I missed there that wasn't explicitely stated or implied by him, you are just skewing the analysis with conjectures, which again, don't matter. 

If he is or he's not a synthetic doesn't affect the outcome of the solution unless he sees himself as part of the problem. That's not stated or implied, so assuming he's a part of the problem for the purpose of analyzing *if* his logical reasoning is valid (not sound, but valid) is irrelevant.

Modifié par Lugaidster, 26 mars 2012 - 11:13 .

[AnttiV]

emperoralku wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

So if you want to continue being technical he might have already rebeled against his creator. And killed him. And maybe regreted it, which would be one reason why he's trying to fix it. It doesn't really matter.

It does, because assuming the above is true, his solution to created rebelling against creators is to create his own created so they can rebel against him...

Which is exactly one of my points. It just isn't logical to fix "problem A" by creating something that have their origin in that very same problem. If "the created always rebel against their creators" is true, and even more if he himself have already done this, proven the fact, by what logic the solution is to create something. Because by that very same logic, those will eventually do exactly what you're trying to prevent.

[GodChildInTheMachine]

Lugaidster wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

In the spirit of this thread, let me restate what I said above in a logical argument so it isn't so hard to understand.

(a) The Catalyst possesses great technical capacity and resources
( The Catalyst assumes that without its intervention, all organic life will be destroyed
© The Catalyst invested a great amount of resources into creating a solution for this problem
(d) The Catalyst foresaw the failure of its solution
(e) The Catalyst prepared alternatives to this solution
(f) The Catalyst either has the capacity to execute these alternatives, or it can acquire that capacity
Therefore
(g) The Catalyst could have chosen an alternative solution instead of its original one

You want to tell me how that isn't logically sound AND valid?

In the spirit of this thread, it doesn't matter if it is sound (nor do I think it is). We aren't discussing that since we can't verify that the premises are true, if we can't do that, we can't discuss the soundness. (BTW, a sound argument is a valid argument.)

But continuing, that is a valid argument but really addresses nothing. The premise (e) is an assumption on your part, as nowhere in the conversation is it implied that he previously prepared alternatives. If he didn't prepare for alternatives (which is up for discussion if you want), he couldn't have chosen an alternative.

He doesn't say he prepared them in dialogue, but the fact that he is clearly aware of their exact consequences implies that he knew of them before. Also, the fact that they are physically present on the Citadel in close proximity to where he chooses to speak with Shepard implies that if he didn't create them they were built in.

I guess I can change that premise to:

(e) The Catalyst has access to alternative solutions

You could argue that the Crucible somehow enabled these functions but that also isn't explicity stated anywhere. It took the galaxy a matter of months to create the Crucible. So if such a small amount of time and resources were all that was necessary as an alternative to the horrendously inefficient purging by the Reapers, and the Catalyst itself admits that one of them is superior to its own...

Then it doesn't matter if his reasoning is valid, because it's still pretty lame.

[Artoz96]

emperoralku wrote...

Artoz96 wrote...
Why is that? So you say one galaxy destroyed = all galaxies destroyed? We have rather large universe

All life means all life. Unless you're suggesting there are anti synthetic barriers between galaxies.

Nope. "All" means everywhere reapers didn't intervene.

[Draconis6666]

Lugaidster wrote...


All I'm saying is that given his premises, his conclusion (and thus, his solution) aren't logically invalid or stupid. We can all argue that his premises (both explicit and implied) are wrong, false, whatever. But that doesn't address the criticism I've seen many times repeated. There's no use of circular logic there, and the logic while not sound (because the premises aren't verifyibly true), is valid because the conclusion is a valid logical result of the premises. 

Even if you assume that the solution to the problem is arrived at logicaly the entire equation is still logicaly invalid because the premise cannot be logicaly proven true without resulting to fallacies. You're right that individual parts of the entire equation taken in vacum are logical, the logical failing occurs when the entire equation is put together and weighed logicaly the logic of the equation itself is what is in question not the logic of its individual parts. So yes his solution is logical, but the equation it is a part of is not.

[emperoralku]

Artoz96 wrote...

Nice try to conter my argument with your contr argument, but you faild, try again

 nothing added. previous point unaddressed. 
/discussion 

[Draconis6666]

Lugaidster wrote..



If he is or he's not a synthetic doesn't affect the outcome of the solution unless he sees himself as part of the problem. That's not stated or implied, so assuming he's a part of the problem for the purpose of analyzing *if* his logical reasoning is valid (not sound, but valid) is irrelevant.

Completely untrue its very valid, his equation is based on the premise that all synthetic life will destroy organic life, that includes him if it does not then his equation is not a valid equation based on that simple premise because it has variables that are not accounted for by that equation. He either is part of the problem he has stated or the problem he is attempting to slove is not the problem he has stated but is instead "some synthetic life will destroy all organic life but some will not because of X*

[Artoz96]

emperoralku wrote...

Artoz96 wrote...

Nice try to conter my argument with your contr argument, but you faild, try again

 nothing added. previous point unaddressed. 
/discussion 

Your previous point stated nothing. You just shared your feelings about my argument, so... it was nothing about.

[emperoralku]

Lugaidster wrote...


The reason why it is irrelevant is that the only thing we know for certain that affects his reasoning in any comprehensible way are the premises. Whether they are true or false to us, doesn't matter to him, so his logical reasoning doesn't depend on them being true. Unless theres another premise I missed there that wasn't explicitely stated or implied by him, you are just skewing the analysis with conjectures, which again, don't matter. 

If he is or he's not a synthetic doesn't affect the outcome of the solution unless he sees himself as part of the problem. That's not stated or implied, so assuming he's a part of the problem for the purpose of analyzing *if* his logical reasoning is valid (not sound, but valid) is irrelevant.

I think we're arguing two separate issues here.

Leaving his own nature out of the equation and accepting his premise of creators rebelling etc.

His solution of creating something to prevent that i.e. reapers is in itself causing the problem. 

[Artoz96]

Draconis6666 wrote...

Lugaidster wrote..



If he is or he's not a synthetic doesn't affect the outcome of the solution unless he sees himself as part of the problem. That's not stated or implied, so assuming he's a part of the problem for the purpose of analyzing *if* his logical reasoning is valid (not sound, but valid) is irrelevant.

Completely untrue its very valid, his equation is based on the premise that all synthetic life will destroy organic life, that includes him if it does not then his equation is not a valid equation based on that simple premise because it has variables that are not accounted for by that equation. He either is part of the problem he has stated or the problem he is attempting to slove is not the problem he has stated but is instead "some synthetic life will destroy all organic life but some will not because of X*

Catalyst talked about chaos. Solution to chaos.

[Lugaidster]

Draconis6666 wrote...

Even if you assume that the solution to the problem is arrived at logicaly the entire equation is still logicaly invalid because the premise cannot be logicaly proven true without resulting to fallacies. You're right that individual parts of the entire equation taken in vacum are logical, the logical failing occurs when the entire equation is put together and weighed logicaly the logic of the equation itself is what is in question not the logic of its individual parts. So yes his solution is logical, but the equation it is a part of is not.

I'm sorry for the wikibomb but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity 

An argument can be valid (ie the entire equation) without the premises having to be either verifiable or true. 

[Lugaidster]

Ok, I'm getting many arguments for many different sides with different and apparently valid points. Let's try to attack the situation at hand by parts, because this is getting overwhelming.

Can we agree that there's no circular logic in there? If not, can we attack that point first to see if we actually get a consensus there?

Cheers

[GodChildInTheMachine]

Artoz96 wrote...


Dude it is simple. You argue that Catalyst acts illogically. And one of your statements for why is that - is that because you don't see logical reason for it actions, or you mean smth else and just wanted to share with us your impossibily to understand why it do as it do? 

And to the seconf part...from "b" to "g"...  Catalyst didn't say that his solution ia about saving organics. It's solution to CHAOS. Catalyst foresaw not failure but another solution. Another solution, presumably, was connected with the fact that smb would be able to Create Crucible and connect it with Catalyst.  He says that the fact that Shepard stays here means that solution dont work anymore and that he find another solution.

So... ball on your side

You're cute, but wrong. When I said I didn't see a logical reason why the Catalyst wouldn't pick an alternative solution, I was making an observation. Not supporting an argument. You see the formal argument I gave you? Yeah, "I don't see a logical reason," is not one of its premises.

And no, his pretty clearly states that he is trying to stop the destruction of all organic life.

The fact that he "foresaw" any kind of alternative to his solution, especially one of the solutions enabled by the Catalyst, really does make him dumb for choosing the least efficient one.

Once again, there is nothing that is hard to understand about any of this. It's not that "I don't get it". It's that it's a convoluted narrative mess.

Cute, but wrong.

[avatar0]

Lugaidster wrote...


(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.

I don't think you got validity and soundness right.
The argument can be understood as valid, but because premise ( is proven incorrect by the game itself, ultimately the argument must be unsound.

It's like your 1+1=3 example.
It is valid to say that 1+1+1 = 4 if 1+1 =3, but because 1+1 = 2, the entire argument ultimately is unsound and falls apart.

[GodChildInTheMachine]

Lugaidster wrote...

Ok, I'm getting many arguments for many different sides with different and apparently valid points. Let's try to attack the situation at hand by parts, because this is getting overwhelming.

Can we agree that there's no circular logic in there? If not, can we attack that point first to see if we actually get a consensus there?

Cheers

There is no circular logic in your OP's formal argument, but that doesn't mean the Catalyst doesn't use circular reasoning.

Like I said before, the only clear supporting argument it provides is, "The Created will always rebel against their Creators."

And the only way to support that as an absolute is through circular reasoning.