695 réponses à ce sujet

[GodChildInTheMachine]

Lugaidster wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. I'm arguing that he presents,

"The Created will always rebel against their creators,"

as a separate argument. And I may have said "prove" before, but I specifically chose the words "support as an absolute" here. I am trying to isolate this premise because it is the hingepoint of his entire thesis. When taken on its own merits any attempt to support this absolute with an argument will be guilty of circular reasoning.

i.e. "The created will always rebel against their creators; the fact that things that are created rebel against their creators is proof of this."

And I think you are not understanding what I'm trying to say. For the logic to be faulty (ie, invalid), the conclusion is required to be invalid. That's about it, the premises are assumed as axioms. Any attempt to disprove the conclusion because a premise is invalid is faulty because the premise was never questioned. Again, we are not discussing the soundness of the argument, rather the validity (making it the result of stupidness or correct usage of logic). 

Well I already conceded that your formal argument was valid if you aren't concerned with the premises, but that doesn't mean the argument isn't guilty of informal fallacies.

Maybe it's not "incorrect" logic but it is "poor" logic.

Something is either logical or isn't. I don't see why it is "poor" logic, it's simply not my logic. Moreover, I already conceded that it's not sound since we can't prove the veracity of the premises. Calling him stupid because his conclusion isn't yours or mine given the premises, is just wrong IMO. That's it.

It's fallacious... I would call that "poor."

As in it's a poor attempt at a persuasive argument, in spite of being formally valid. Which it is, in my opinion.

If I were speaking with a deistic being responsible for the deaths of thousands of my people and entire civilizations, and his argument for doing so "begged the question", I would probably press him on it. I guess that's really all I'm getting at.

[Draconis6666]

Ok look at it this way. The catalyst has said

(a) organic civilzations created synthetics
( synthetics will always rebel against their creators and destroy all organics

his solution is that if (a) is true and ( is true the solution is ©

© being reap all advanced organic life to preserve non advanced organic life

However the argument is fallacious because while (a) can be proven to be true ( cannot be and is only true through logical fallacy in this case the Fallacy of Composition. So while © is a logicaly valid conclusion to

if (a) is true and ( is true then ©

it is NOT a valid conclusion to

if (a) is true and ( is not true then ©

so its conclusion is only true when ( is proven true by fallacy, making the argument and the conclusion fallacious even if its logical

Edit: And yes ( cannot be proven true except through fallacy as it is stated, there is no way to prove it even for a super intelligent AI like the catalyst, in order to prove that it would have to have access to everything that has happened from the beginning of time till the end of time and show that this is always the case, if it is not it is Fallacious. It can assume it to be true but that is a logical fallacy in and of itself called an argument from authority

Modifié par Draconis6666, 26 mars 2012 - 01:12 .

[Lugaidster]

emperoralku wrote...

I see what you mean in that it doesn't conform to circular reasoning by definition. However(correct me if I'm wrong):

Premise 1: B creates A
Premise 2: A destroys B
Conclusion: Create A to prevent B creating A.

If the premises are true (the assumption under which the catalyst operates) then the conclusion is not a solition for obvious reasons. Whilst I cannot name it there is some kind of illogical reasoning there. There is no possible logical justification for this line of reasoning unless the catalyst KNOWS the premise to be true. It is therefore either illogical in some form, or simply lying.

That's the thing, the only thing we can do to analyse if his reasoning is valid is to assume that the premises are true, in which case we are also assuming that the Catalyst knows them to be true. Again, I'm not saying that the argument is logically sound, after all, there's no way to prove those premises. But if for some reason they are right, and the catalyst knows they are OR he's simply a wicked machine (not trying to be sarcastic here) in the sense that he has an altered perception on reality, then his conclusion is correct given the premises. 

There's obviously going to be something wrong here in the premises if we start to dig deep enough, but then again, he's a machine. If I were able to hardcode something in your head to make you believe it is true to the point you can't question that, you could probably begin to understand why the logic reasoning that follows that would be correct even if the premises that I hardcoded in your head are not. That is why I say the premises aren't really up for discussion, because the reapers never revealed how came to them. 

It would've been better if they just simply left it as a mystery, but then again, it actually does nothing as whatever reason they came up with we wouldn't still agree. The reapers are the antagonist, you won't agree with his conclusions no matter what, but that doesn't imply they are stupid conclusions. 

The best comparison I can think of is with psicotic mass murderers. When you hear their way of thinking it usually makes some sort of sense in some kind of twisted reality. You might never arrive to his conclusions and you may regard his premises are false (because they usually are), but the reasoning behind is usually correct. 

[GodChildInTheMachine]

Lugaidster wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

I get you but if you're not allowed to touch the premises, the OP's argument is valid. I still think that it's fallacious, but it's not circular reasoning and that's really what the OP was trying to state.

Not trying to pick or anything but what do you mean by fallacious? I'm trying to get a sense of where we're going at. 

Like I said earlier it's guilty of at least petitio principii, which is not formal or structural so it doesn't affect the validity of the argument but it's a fallacy nonetheless. It's a fallacy of assumption.

[Lugaidster]

Draconis6666 wrote...

Ok look at it this way. The catalyst has said

(a) organic civilzations created synthetics
( synthetics will always rebel against their creators and destroy all organics

his solution is that if (a) is true and ( is true the solution is ©

© being reap all advanced organic life to preserve non advanced organic life

However the argument is fallacious because while (a) can be proven to be true ( cannot be and is only true through logical fallacy in this case the Fallacy of Composition. So while © is a logicaly valid conclusion to

if (a) is true and ( is true then ©

it is NOT a valid conclusion to

if (a) is true and ( is not true then ©

so its conclusion is only true when ( is proven true by fallacy, making the argument and the conclusion fallacious even if its logical

Edit: And yes ( cannot be proven true except through fallacy as it is stated, there is no way to prove it even for a super intelligent AI like the catalyst, in order to prove that it would have to have access to everything that has happened from the beginning of time till the end of time and show that this is always the case, if it is not it is Fallacious. It can assume it to be true but that is a logical fallacy in and of itself.

OK, that would make the statement logicaly unsound as one of the premises can't be proven to be valid (as my math example in the original post). However, that doesn't prove that the logic isn't valid, because for valid logic to exist, the premises are already assumed to be true. Even more than that, they are assumed to be axioms. 

Informal or formal validity is not something I've seen or read, but what I've read of validity only requires that the conclusion is a logical outcome of the premises (ie, axioms). In other words, the argument can be invalid, valid and sound. This argument fails the soundness test because the premises can't be tested/aren't true. But it does pass the validity test, making it non-circular and non-stupid. 

To further my point, this is a common example of fallacy by composition:

[*]Human cells are invisible to the naked eye.
[*]Humans are made up of human cells.
[*]Therefore, humans are invisible to the naked eye.

The fallacy here is in the conclusion, thus making the argument invalid. The conclusion of the catalyst isn't a fallacy. Just a premise if you try to analyse the supporting argument, for which there is none, making the discussion on the veracity of that premise moot.

Modifié par Lugaidster, 26 mars 2012 - 01:18 .

[emperoralku]

Lugaidster wrote...

That's the thing, the only thing we can do to analyse if his reasoning is valid is to assume that the premises are true, in which case we are also assuming that the Catalyst knows them to be true. Again, I'm not saying that the argument is logically sound, after all, there's no way to prove those premises. But if for some reason they are right, and the catalyst knows they are OR he's simply a wicked machine (not trying to be sarcastic here) in the sense that he has an altered perception on reality, then his conclusion is correct given the premises. 

Ok, like I said operating under the assumption that it's true; how is him carrying out the  very action he is trying to prevent in anyway a correct conclusion?

I am not questioning his premises at this stage merely his line of reasoning. You cannot prevent x by causing x. That is a self defeating argument.

[Draconis6666]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

I get you but if you're not allowed to touch the premises, the OP's argument is valid. I still think that it's fallacious, but it's not circular reasoning and that's really what the OP was trying to state.

Not trying to pick or anything but what do you mean by fallacious? I'm trying to get a sense of where we're going at. 

Like I said earlier it's guilty of at least petitio principii, which is not formal or structural so it doesn't affect the validity of the argument but it's a fallacy nonetheless. It's a fallacy of assumption.

Its guilty of multiple fallacies petitio principii being only one of them, its also guilty of fallacy of composition, Genetic Fallacy, possibly others, inconsistancy, Hypocricy, argument from authority all depending on how you look at the problem but from any angle it is clearly fallacious in one way or another.

[Draconis6666]

Lugaidster wrote...

Draconis6666 wrote...

Ok look at it this way. The catalyst has said

(a) organic civilzations created synthetics
( synthetics will always rebel against their creators and destroy all organics

his solution is that if (a) is true and ( is true the solution is ©

© being reap all advanced organic life to preserve non advanced organic life

However the argument is fallacious because while (a) can be proven to be true ( cannot be and is only true through logical fallacy in this case the Fallacy of Composition. So while © is a logicaly valid conclusion to

if (a) is true and ( is true then ©

it is NOT a valid conclusion to

if (a) is true and ( is not true then ©

so its conclusion is only true when ( is proven true by fallacy, making the argument and the conclusion fallacious even if its logical

Edit: And yes ( cannot be proven true except through fallacy as it is stated, there is no way to prove it even for a super intelligent AI like the catalyst, in order to prove that it would have to have access to everything that has happened from the beginning of time till the end of time and show that this is always the case, if it is not it is Fallacious. It can assume it to be true but that is a logical fallacy in and of itself.

OK, that would make the statement logicaly unsound as one of the premises can't be proven to be valid (as my math example in the original post). However, that doesn't prove that the logic isn't valid, because for valid logic to exist, the premises are already assumed to be true. Even more than that, they are assumed to be axioms. 

Informal or formal validity is not something I've seen or read, but what I've read of validity only requires that the conclusion is a logical outcome of the premises (ie, axioms). In other words, the argument can be invalid, valid and sound. This argument fails the soundness test because the premises can't be tested/aren't true. But it does pass the validity test, making it non-circular and non-stupid. 

To further my point, this is a common example of fallacy by composition:

• Human cells are invisible to the naked eye.
• Humans are made up of human cells.
• Therefore, humans are invisible to the naked eye.

The fallacy here is in the conclusion, thus making the argument invalid. The conclusion of the catalyst isn't a fallacy. Just a premise if you try to analyse the supporting argument, for which there is none, making the discusion on the veracity of that premise moot.

Your right thats the point its logicaly valid but still fallacious, the argument is fallacious regardless of if the conclusion is logicaly valid. Its conclusion is valid but its a valid conclusion from a falacious argument. So it is either willfully ignoring this and stil operating under that conclusion or it is stupid and does not recognize the fallacy of the argument. Its not a matter of if the conclusion is actualy logicaly valid in this case its a matter of the argument being a fallacious argument from the beginning so that the conclusion should not even be relevant unless you ignore the fact that the problem itself is false or do not recognize the problem as being false.

So it is either wilfully opperating under a fallacious argument with a valid conclusion to that argument or it is unable to comprehend that its argument is fallacious and is stupid. Not all fallacious arguments have to have invalid conclusions you can have valid conclusions that are still fallacious arguments.

Basicaly it is either stupid because it either cannot recognize the fallacy or it is willfully malicious as it has taken the time to come up with a conclusion to a false argument and then act on that conclusion knowing that the argument is false

Basicaly your right, it is being logical but it IS usint bad logic because it is using logic to conclude a fallacy so while the logic it uses is valid logic it is bad logic because it is logicaly solving something that is not true.

Modifié par Draconis6666, 26 mars 2012 - 01:23 .

[GodChildInTheMachine]

Draconis6666 wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

I get you but if you're not allowed to touch the premises, the OP's argument is valid. I still think that it's fallacious, but it's not circular reasoning and that's really what the OP was trying to state.

Not trying to pick or anything but what do you mean by fallacious? I'm trying to get a sense of where we're going at. 

Like I said earlier it's guilty of at least petitio principii, which is not formal or structural so it doesn't affect the validity of the argument but it's a fallacy nonetheless. It's a fallacy of assumption.

Its guilty of multiple fallacies petitio principii being only one of them, its also guilty of fallacy of composition, Genetic Fallacy, possibly others, inconsistancy, Hypocricy, argument from authority all depending on how you look at the problem but from any angle it is clearly fallacious in one way or another.

It is guilty of informal fallacies which affect its cogency, not its validity. That is why I said it is a poor argument. Argument from Authority, the Divine Fallacy, and Regression Fallacy all come up it its defense, and perhaps they are implied but I guess they are kind of hard to stick to it.

When people argue that his true motives or proofs to his premises are unknowable or unimportant because he must know something we don't, they are employing Argument from Authority or the Divine Fallacy.

[CaptainZaysh]

emperoralku wrote...

Ok, like I said operating under the assumption that it's true; how is him carrying out the  very action he is trying to prevent in anyway a correct conclusion?

I am not questioning his premises at this stage merely his line of reasoning. You cannot prevent x by causing x. That is a self defeating argument.

But that's not what he's doing.  He's preventing X (a singularity) by causing Y (preventing organics reaching the tech level required to execute a singularity).

It only stops making sense when you oversimplify it.  For instance, one could oversimplify a cop shooting a murderer like so: a human kills a human to stop it killing a human.

"Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler." -Einstein

[Draconis6666]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Draconis6666 wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

I get you but if you're not allowed to touch the premises, the OP's argument is valid. I still think that it's fallacious, but it's not circular reasoning and that's really what the OP was trying to state.

Not trying to pick or anything but what do you mean by fallacious? I'm trying to get a sense of where we're going at. 

Like I said earlier it's guilty of at least petitio principii, which is not formal or structural so it doesn't affect the validity of the argument but it's a fallacy nonetheless. It's a fallacy of assumption.

Its guilty of multiple fallacies petitio principii being only one of them, its also guilty of fallacy of composition, Genetic Fallacy, possibly others, inconsistancy, Hypocricy, argument from authority all depending on how you look at the problem but from any angle it is clearly fallacious in one way or another.

It is guilty of informal fallacies which affect its cogency, not its validity. That is why I said it is a poor argument. Argument from Authority, the Divine Fallacy, and Regression Fallacy all come up it its defense, and perhaps they are implied but I guess they are kind of hard to stick to it.

When people argue that his true motives or proofs to his premises are unknowable or unimportant because he must know something we don't, they are employing Argument from Authority or the Divine Fallacy.

Right its a valid conclusion to a fallacious problem is the basic point. The conclusion is valid but the problem the conclusion solves is a false problem from a logical standpoint with the premises given. So while its acting logicaly its doing so using bad logic either purposefully or because it doesnt recognize the difference.

[Roxlimn]

CaptainZaysh:

If nothing else, this thread proves that Sovereign was absolutely right and that Catalyst ought to never have bothered trying to explain.

[Book buster]

Draconis6666 wrote...

Ok look at it this way. The catalyst has said

(a) organic civilzations created synthetics
( synthetics will always rebel against their creators and destroy all organics

his solution is that if (a) is true and ( is true the solution is ©

© being reap all advanced organic life to preserve non advanced organic life

However the argument is fallacious because while (a) can be proven to be true ( cannot be and is only true through logical fallacy in this case the Fallacy of Composition. So while © is a logicaly valid conclusion to

if (a) is true and ( is true then ©

it is NOT a valid conclusion to

if (a) is true and ( is not true then ©

so its conclusion is only true when ( is proven true by fallacy, making the argument and the conclusion fallacious even if its logical

Edit: And yes ( cannot be proven true except through fallacy as it is stated, there is no way to prove it even for a super intelligent AI like the catalyst, in order to prove that it would have to have access to everything that has happened from the beginning of time till the end of time and show that this is always the case, if it is not it is Fallacious. It can assume it to be true but that is a logical fallacy in and of itself called an argument from authority

can't actually be proven either way. However, the balance of evidence currently weighs on the side of being untrue; even if we forget about the Geth, the Catalyst itself is an example of an advanced but benign AI.  Er, using benign in the loosest possible sense. 

If is true, then the question must be asked as to why the Catalyst has not already destroyed all organic life itself, of its own accord.  If it truly believes its own logic, than it *must* act in that fashion.  The Catalyst has, in effect, created a paradox for itself.  Its argument relies on being true, but can only be true if it, itself, is planning to destroy all organic life.

Modifié par Book buster, 26 mars 2012 - 01:37 .

[emperoralku]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

But that's not what he's doing.  He's preventing X (a singularity) by causing Y (preventing organics reaching the tech level required to execute a singularity).

It only stops making sense when you oversimplify it.  For instance, one could oversimplify a cop shooting a murderer like so: a human kills a human to stop it killing a human.

"Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler." -Einstein

You fail to mention that his method for Y is by creating something sentient (reapers). Following the original premise that "created will ALWAYS rebel against creators" we have to then follow that with the catalyst eventually being overthrown by the reapers and them destroying all organic life. This leads back to his original problem.

His solution only works if his original premises are false.

Modifié par emperoralku, 26 mars 2012 - 01:34 .

[sydranark]

Lugaidster wrote...

sydranark wrote...

hahaha sure, we haven't created true artificial intelligence. I thought we were talking ME here. In the story, AI has been created, and while some AI units in the game have tried to kill organics, not all have. So, there's plenty of evidence that not all AI kill. Therefore, that premise is false. =P

The premise doesn't place a limit on time, and current actions don't affect future ones. Britain and France have been at peace and at war several times through out their history, the fact that there's peace now doesn't mean that there won't be war in the future, just as it didn't imply that in the past. If synthetic are anything like organics, they can change their mind, which goes to show that current peace isn't evidence of future peace.

The galaxy made a case for themselves by uniting against the reapers. But that's hardly enough evidence to support an argument. As such, you either kill the reapers, or accept one of the *new* solutions. 

 

I wasn't arguing that. All I was saying was that there is evidence against "all synthetics kill all lifeforms," making that premise false, and therefore making the whole argument unsound. But now that you've brought it up, can you assign a "chance" to "all synthetcs kill all organics"? It is impossible to know the actual chance. The reapers are acting without knowing the chance that they willl be correct. Hence my analogy that the TSA kills everyone at the airport to prevent terrorism. 

Lugaidster wrote... 

sydranark wrote... 

Anyway, as for dumbness. A dumb argument is something a dumb person would argue. Lets say I argue that all humans are birds, all birds are goats, so all humans are goats. My argument is valid, but my premises and conclusion are all false. That said, if I were trying to argue that all humans are goats, it would be safe to assume that I was stupid. Dumb. An idiot. Why? Because my premises are both false, and humans are obviously not goats. So to say so would be dumb.

That's the definition of crazy, not dumb. Furthermore, it's fairly common practice in debates to put you in situations where the premises are apparently false. Correct reasoning isn't something stupid people do. 

 

Dumb: lacking intelligence; showing a lack of intelligence; requiring no intelligence. 

The reaper's argument requires no intelligence since it works off of false premises. The reapers show a lack of intelligence since they truly believe in an argument with false premises. Anyone can say Dog = Fish; Fish = Monkey; Dog = Monkey and be valid, but incorrect at the same time. As science proves, dogs aren't interchangeable with monkeys. And if you believe so, you are showing a lack of intelligence. This makes you an ________

(you fill in the blank this time)

Lugaidster wrote...  

sydranark wrote...  

Lastly, I didn't mean the conclusion of 2+2=3 was made up in the sense that is was invalid. I meant that the person who argued 2+2=3 with a valid argument would be pulling both premises out of his butt in order to make the conclusion. Therefore, the conclusion would be "made up," and the unsound argument would be dumb. And the person making that argument (and truly believing in that argument) would also be dumb as hell. 

Except that you can't prove that the premises of the catalyst are false or pulled out of his ass. Moreover, you're still making a case for crazy or insane people, not stupid people. Those terms aren't interchangeable.

It should be a natural reaction for us to react upon the argument the Catalyst exposes, as we regard the premises as supposedly false. But that doesn't make the Catalyst stupid, it merely makes it crazy. 

I already replied to this above. And whether or not he pulled them our of his butt, they can beargued against. They aren't true, and can't apply to all organics/all synthetics/all scenarios.

[Lugaidster]

Draconis6666 wrote...

Your right thats the point its logicaly valid but still fallacious, the argument is fallacious regardless of if the conclusion is logicaly valid. Its conclusion is valid but its a valid conclusion from a falacious argument. So it is either willfully ignoring this and stil operating under that conclusion or it is stupid and does not recognize the fallacy of the argument. Its not a matter of if the conclusion is actualy logicaly valid in this case its a matter of the argument being a fallacious argument from the beginning so that the conclusion should not even be relevant unless you ignore the fact that the problem itself is false or do not recognize the problem as being false.

So it is either wilfully opperating under a fallacious argument with a valid conclusion to that argument or it is unable to comprehend that its argument is fallacious and is stupid. Not all fallacious arguments have to have invalid conclusions you can have valid conclusions that are still fallacious arguments.

Again, mixing concepts. The fallacy only becomes relevant if you question the premises. You don't know if that premise was hard-coded or whatever, you have to start assuming to even begin to discuss whether or not the argument is sound. And it doesn't really matter, not from his point of view. You could see him as a psicotic murderer that was hardcoded for some reason those premises.

Regarding him as stupid because the premises are false is wrong. This is why you can argue Insanity defense in a court of law. Logically valid and correct reasoning can come from fallacious premises. The resulting argument would be, then, valid but unsound. The only fallacious argument is the supporting argument of the fallacious premise, which you never should question while discussing the validity of another argument using the premise. I'm going to stress *validity* here. The resulting argument *is* unsound because the premise *is* fallacious, but the reasoning to arrive to the conclusion is not invalid because the conclusion is a correct and logical product of the premises *assumed* to be true.

For all we know the Catalyst is crazy, but that is not stupid. Whatever the reasons for him believing that the premises are true we will never know. They could be hard-coded for all we know.

[Draconis6666]

Book buster wrote...

Draconis6666 wrote...

Ok look at it this way. The catalyst has said

(a) organic civilzations created synthetics
( synthetics will always rebel against their creators and destroy all organics

his solution is that if (a) is true and ( is true the solution is ©

© being reap all advanced organic life to preserve non advanced organic life

However the argument is fallacious because while (a) can be proven to be true ( cannot be and is only true through logical fallacy in this case the Fallacy of Composition. So while © is a logicaly valid conclusion to

if (a) is true and ( is true then ©

it is NOT a valid conclusion to

if (a) is true and ( is not true then ©

so its conclusion is only true when ( is proven true by fallacy, making the argument and the conclusion fallacious even if its logical

Edit: And yes ( cannot be proven true except through fallacy as it is stated, there is no way to prove it even for a super intelligent AI like the catalyst, in order to prove that it would have to have access to everything that has happened from the beginning of time till the end of time and show that this is always the case, if it is not it is Fallacious. It can assume it to be true but that is a logical fallacy in and of itself called an argument from authority

can't actually be proven either way. However, the balance of evidence currently weighs on the side of being untrue; even if we forget about the Geth, the Catalyst itself is an example of an advanced but benign AI.  Er, using benign in the loosest possible sense.  If is true, then the question must be asked as to why the  Catalyst has not already destroyed all life itself.  The Catalyst has, in effect, created a paradox for itself.  Its argument relies on being true, but can only be true if it, itself, is planning to destroy all organic life.

Correct according to its own logic the Catalyst MUST destroy all organic life or it has commited another logical Fallacy.

[CaptainZaysh]

Roxlimn wrote...

CaptainZaysh:

If nothing else, this thread proves that Sovereign was absolutely right and that Catalyst ought to never have bothered trying to explain.

[Revan312]

Starchild logic = "Hey, I heard you have cancer.. that's too bad.. Here, lemme beat in your head with a baseball bat so you don't die from cancer.."

[emperoralku]

Roxlimn wrote...

CaptainZaysh:

If nothing else, this thread proves that Sovereign was absolutely right and that Catalyst ought to never have bothered trying to explain.

What are you talking about? This is my favourite thread on the citadel.

[Artoz96]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

emperoralku wrote...

Ok, like I said operating under the assumption that it's true; how is him carrying out the  very action he is trying to prevent in anyway a correct conclusion?

I am not questioning his premises at this stage merely his line of reasoning. You cannot prevent x by causing x. That is a self defeating argument.

But that's not what he's doing.  He's preventing X (a singularity) by causing Y (preventing organics reaching the tech level required to execute a singularity).

It only stops making sense when you oversimplify it.  For instance, one could oversimplify a cop shooting a murderer like so: a human kills a human to stop it killing a human.

"Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler." -Einstein

This.

[CaptainZaysh]

emperoralku wrote...

You fail to mention that his method for Y is by creating something sentient (reapers). Following the original premise that "created will ALWAYS rebel against creators" we have to then follow that with the catalyst eventually being overthrown by the reapers and them destroying all organic life. This leads back to his original problem.

His solution only works if his original premises are false.

No, that's not accurate.  If you think about it, he can't possibly mean that "all created things will always rebel".  For instance, cars and toasters are never going to rebel.  So we are expected to apply some discrimination to his statement.

He obviously meant that "some created things will always rebel against their creators".  For whatever reason (shackling?) the Reapers are not one of the created things.

Also, it sounds like you're only working with a narrow definition of the word "rebel".  I think the Catalyst is saying that an unshackled AI will eventually always lead to a singularity, which is what the Reapers are there to prevent.

[Lugaidster]

sydranark wrote...

I wasn't arguing that. All I was saying was that there is evidence against "all synthetics kill all lifeforms," making that premise false, and therefore making the whole argument unsound. 

Your whole post fell flat on it's face right there as an unsound argument is not a stupid argument. Furthermore, I implied in the OP that the premise of the Catalyst isn't sound because the premises can't be proven to be true, but you don't require true premises to have a logically valid argument. A logically valid argument = logically correct = correct usage of logic = not stupid.

[AnttiV]

Roxlimn wrote...

CaptainZaysh:

If nothing else, this thread proves that Sovereign was absolutely right and that Catalyst ought to never have bothered trying to explain.

That would actually been the most preferred solution, in my opinion. Leave the Reapers' motivation a mystery, maybe hint of their origins or something, but the actual reason of WHY they are doing what they do.. I think that should've been left in the dark. At least if this is the alternative. (but, I did totally hate the space kid, I detest Deus Ex Machina endings)

[Lugaidster]

Draconis6666 wrote...

Correct according to its own logic the Catalyst MUST destroy all organic life or it has commited another logical Fallacy.

That is only true if he regards himself as a "created", which is not implied nor explicit. The origins of the reapers were never really explained other than by the conversation with Sovereign. Which make them to be unfathomable. Furthermore, I think that trying to explain the endings would've been even harder.

Modifié par Lugaidster, 26 mars 2012 - 01:51 .