695 réponses à ce sujet

[emperoralku]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

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.

Now you are making assumptions on behalf of the catalyst.

His words were  "The created will always rebel against their creators"

Note that there is no sometimes. He makes an absolute statement which means there is no leeway.

Since the reapers are created they MUST rebel.

have to go now. be back later.

Modifié par emperoralku, 26 mars 2012 - 01:52 .

[Book buster]

The word 'singularity' is being bandied about a fair bit in this thread, primarily as justification for the Catalyst's actions. It needs to be pointed out that a technological singularity is not, in and of itself, necessarily a bad thing, let alone one that will result in the destruction of organic life. It's actually equally likely that such an event would be beneficial for organic life. The synthesis solution is actually a (poor) nod to that: by transforming everyone into something that is transhuman/post-human, the species of the galaxy are able to participate in and drive the singularity themselves.

[CaptainZaysh]

emperoralku wrote...

Now you are making assumptions on behalf of the catalyst.

His words were  "The created will always rebel against their creators"

Note that there is no sometimes. He makes an absolute statement which means there is no leeway.

Since the reapers are created they MUST rebel.

have to go now. be back later.

Okay, so if you take him that literally you must believe that the Catalyst thinks t-shirts will rebel?

[Draconis6666]

Lugaidster wrote...

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.

Thats the point though he is only stupid if he does not recognize the Fallacy, if he is not capable of recognizing the fallacy. If he recognizes the Fallacy but acts on it anyway then he is as you say insane or willfully malicious beacuse he is acting to solve a problem that he himself recognizes to be false.

The reason I infer that he is stupid is because based on the evidevce we have from him in game he believes that his problem is in fact true. Hard coded or not if he is truly a sentient logical intelligence as he claims he would have to be able to understand that the problem he is solving is logicaly fallacious, otherwise he would not be able to think logically to arrive at his conclusion at all. Its not even the supporting argument of the premise that is fallacious its the premise itself that is fallacious. Again your right its logical but it is still as many people have said BAD logic.

Regardless of the reason it is doing so, being hard coded etc, it is using bad logic. Valid logic but still bad logic. Regardless any way you look at it there is zero reason to accept that anything he tells you is true or that his solutions are a good idea or the only solution. So I guess the real point is that even if you assume the catalyst does not use fallacious logic from his point of view due to whatever reason, be it hardcoding that ensures that he recognizes ( as being true regardless of if it is or not.

He is not in the ending coming to his conclusion, he is explaining his conclusion to Shepard. To shepard assuming he takes the time to logicaly analize the problem also the logic if faulty. Because Shepard who recognizes the fallacy of ( will never arrive at © because he realiese ( is false and that there is no reason to solve the problem because it is untrue. This is the problem with the ending, Shepard automaticaly accepts the Catalyst's problem and solution as being logical when he should not, because Shepard should when examining the same problem never arrive at © because he recognizes the fallacy of (.

He may have logical come to his conclusion but when his logic is used to support his conclusion from an outside viewpoint it should not be accepted because the problem is false so the conclusion is irrelevant. So I guess one way to put it would be that it is acceptable personal logic but bad or poor logic when attempting to defend or explain your actions to someone else who recognizes the falllacy of the problem. So while I will concede that his logic is not circular and is a valid conclusion to the problem he was trying to solve. It is still a failure of logic in the ending in that it should not have been accepted logic by anyone but the Catalyst itself and the reapers it controls who did not belive the the same logical fallacies they believe to be true for whatever reason are true.

So ok I guess your right the catalyst does not use circular or fauly logic from certian viewpoints (though it still does from others) but the game still uses bad logic to explain its three options to you that your character automaticaly accepts as true when they should not.

[Artoz96]

emperoralku wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

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.

Now you are making assumptions on behalf of the catalyst.

His words were  "The created will always rebel against their creators"

Note that there is no sometimes. He makes an absolute statement which means there is no leeway. The only way he can be reaching a logical conclusion is if he knows this statement is false and is lying.

He makes statement that YOU understand as absolute.  So when he says I am the Catalyst. So you think he means he is a chemical agent? Stop this nosence.

[Draconis6666]

Lugaidster wrote...

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.

If one of his premises is that all synthetic life will destroy organic life then it is true regardless of if he is created or not but your right his only actual stated premise in this regard is created rebel against their creator, but if he is truly an intelligent and sentient being he should be able to reason that he was obviously created because one of his premises is that synthetic life is created by organic life if this is not the case and he was not created then he himself is a product of the chaos of random creation that he attributes to organic life. 

The mistake that sovereign refers to as organic life would include him as well.

[Lugaidster]

Draconis6666 wrote...

So ok I guess your right the catalyst does not use circular or fauly logic from certian viewpoints (though it still does from others) but the game still uses bad logic to explain its three options to you that your character automaticaly accepts as true when they should not.

I can't agree more with the bolded part. The original solution I can accept given his premises. The new solutions without being able to say **** you I can't. If anything, it's Shepard the one that's being stupid here, as he's falling for an unsound argument by an unstrustworthy enemy.

[Lugaidster]

Draconis6666 wrote...

If one of his premises is that all synthetic life will destroy organic life then it is true regardless of if he is created or not but your right his only actual stated premise in this regard is created rebel against their creator, but if he is truly an intelligent and sentient being he should be able to reason that he was obviously created because one of his premises is that synthetic life is created by organic life if this is not the case and he was not created then he himself is a product of the chaos of random creation that he attributes to organic life. 

The mistake that sovereign refers to as organic life would include him as well.

Thank god they didn't try to explain their origins.

[Book buster]

Lugaidster wrote...

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.

If he is not created, what is he?

Interstingly, if we take him at his word, in that the created will always destroy their creators, it's also inevitable that, eventually, organic life will rise up and destroy the catalyst and the reapers: their interference in the development of the various species, their active uplift, firmly places them in the role of creator.

[emperoralku]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

emperoralku wrote...

Now you are making assumptions on behalf of the catalyst.

His words were  "The created will always rebel against their creators"

Note that there is no sometimes. He makes an absolute statement which means there is no leeway.

Since the reapers are created they MUST rebel.

have to go now. be back later.

Okay, so if you take him that literally you must believe that the Catalyst thinks t-shirts will rebel?

If they had the ability to. We can only discuss this withthe information provided to us. As soon as you start to assume things you begin to move the goalposts.

My argument still stands and your appeal to ridicule doesn't change that. Given the catalyst's absolute statement his solution becomes the very thing he tries to avoid. Unless he is lying and knows that his original premise is untrue.

[CaptainZaysh]

Book buster wrote...

The word 'singularity' is being bandied about a fair bit in this thread, primarily as justification for the Catalyst's actions. It needs to be pointed out that a technological singularity is not, in and of itself, necessarily a bad thing, let alone one that will result in the destruction of organic life.  It's actually equally likely that such an event would be beneficial for organic life.  The synthesis solution is actually a (poor) nod to that: by transforming everyone into something that is transhuman/post-human, the species of the galaxy are able to participate in and drive the singularity themselves.

The Wiki page explains the problem with assertions like that quite well:

"Since the capabilities of such intelligence would be difficult for an unaided human mind to comprehend, the occurrence of a technological singularity is seen as an intellectual event horizon, beyond which events cannot be predicted or understood."

Basically there is little way to predict the actual outcome.  The page goes on to explain reasonable explanations as to why it may be a bad outcome for us.

What is possible to predict is that the beings created via singularity would be able to develop the ability to destroy organic civilisation.  If their capability to destroy us exists, their using that capability (perhaps even in self defence, or as a means to uplift us) is a non-zero possibility.

Given enough time, all non-zero possibiities will eventually occur, which is why the Catalyst can say with some confidence that allowing the Singularity to occur will inexorably lead to the end of organic civilisation.

[BlackMaster]

Why everyone insist that Reapers are synthetic? The Reapers are NOT synthetic so that thing about synthetics killing organics to prevent synthetics kill organics is WRONG.

Sovereign says that they are the final step of evolution on ME1. EDI says that the Reapers are part organic and part synthetic on ME2. Starchild says that synthesis is final step of evolution, being part organic and part synthetic, on ME3. So, Reapers are NOT synthetics, they are hybrids, or whatever you wanna call them.

Starting from there, we don't know much more about Reapers or the history of the gallaxy. Maybe that was BioWare's plan. They wanted to keep Reapers as a mistery, so they couldn't say too much.

Most of the questions CAN be answered. If some people think that Reapers are synthetics, it is normal to be confuse.

-Q: Why the Reapers come back every 50.000 years? How can it be that it goes exactly 50,000 years before a civilization creates synthetics?
-A: The Reapers DON'T come back every 50.000 years exactly! It is a cycle. Some cycles may last 40.000 years and some cycles may last 60.000. That's the reason they left a vanguard behind. One Reapers stays and watch how evolution goes. In this cycle, the vanguard was the Sovereign. Vigil explains that on Ilos. When the vanguard think the moment has come, send a signal to the Keepers to activate the Citadel's Relay so all the other Reapers can come back. The Protheans deactivate that signal, so the Keepers doesn't responde.

-Q: Why the Reapers go to the dark space? Why not stay as guardians or something?
-A: Because they don't want to leave any trace. If they stay, the other races may try to contact them, study them or take them as enemies or may choose another way to evolve, instead of using the mass relay's technology. Besides, the Reapers go to dark space to "sleep". On "sleeping mode" they are defenseless.

-Q: If synthetics are the problem, why not kill synthetic instead of organics?
-A: Because the most advanced organics may create new synthetics, maybe upgraded. In that case, the cycles would be shorter. If some race create synthetics and the Reapers destroy all that synthetics, then it will take a few years to the organics to create new, improve, synthetics. If Reapers kill organics, it will take 50.000 years to the organics to create new synthetics.

What the Catalyst says, is not that they want to save the human, asari or turian race by killing them. They want to PRESERVE those races as Reapers, and save the younger races from synthetics. Even if synthetics weren't created, the new species can not evolve when there are other species controling the galaxy.
We can see that in Jarvik's story. The protheans were in war against machines, but they controlled other races too. They enslave other species, preventing them to achieve all their power.
The turians almost kill all mankind. Batarians blame humanity for all their problems. Even if the Geth never existed, younger races would have problems to evolve.

And even when a peace is signed with the Geth, they are evolving, and no one knows when or why they would enter in a new war with all the other species. The Geth doesn't need vegetation or any organic lives to exist.

And if the Starchild doesn't show any proof, maybe it is because the Reapers were organics once and to prevent their own extinction, they become Reapers to preserve them selves and all other organics to come.

And I'm very sorry for my english. It is not my language.

Edit:

One more thing. The Reapers wants to preserve life, because they are in part organic, so, if organic dies, they also die.

Modifié par BlackMaster, 26 mars 2012 - 02:10 .

[CaptainZaysh]

emperoralku wrote...

If they had the ability to. We can only discuss this withthe information provided to us. As soon as you start to assume things you begin to move the goalposts.

Well okay, you're already qualifying the Catalyst's statement.  You believe it means "created things with the ability to rebel will always rebel", right?

So if the Reapers do not have the ability to rebel (maybe they're shackled), they'd be excluded from the set.  Shackling would certainly explain why they never seem to evolve their tech level nor their desire to do anything beyond perpetuating the cycle.

[hyperforce99]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

emperoralku wrote...

If they had the ability to. We can only discuss this withthe information provided to us. As soon as you start to assume things you begin to move the goalposts.

Well okay, you're already qualifying the Catalyst's statement.  You believe it means "created things with the ability to rebel will always rebel", right?

So if the Reapers do not have the ability to rebel (maybe they're shackled), they'd be excluded from the set.  Shackling would certainly explain why they never seem to evolve their tech level nor their desire to do anything beyond perpetuating the cycle.

The reapers are constantly evolving their tech, expecially when it comes to making new abominations from existing races. The protean says so.

In any case, I don't like it that the reapers are under some control of the catalyst.
It breaks with everything we have known and learned about them until the very end of ME3, just like so many things with the ending.

Sovereign says in ME1 that each reaper is like a nation. They were the unknowable, the dark destructive force that needed no explanation and the Citadel was their tool, not their master. It cheapens them.

[CaptainZaysh]

My guess is that the Catalyst was an AI programmed with the following directives:

1. Preserve and protect advanced organic civilisation.
2. Prevent a technological singularity.

Achieving (2) is very, very difficult. Stopping an entire galaxy full of scientists from advancing up a certain tech path is a vast challenge. It would be simpler to simply kill all the organics before they get to the dangerous tech level, but directive (1) prevents you from doing so.

Until some bright spark somewhere invents the ability to turn organics into Reapers. This cut text from ME2 implies that organic consciousness somehow continues to exist after the ride through the smoothie machine:

It was lonely. It called to us.
It wanted to remember. The Masters had been gone so long.
The Masters were lost when it was shattered.
Currents swept through their inner worlds. They were turned to noise. Babble.
The worlds were empty. But the body lived. It lay fallow.
The heart pumped. The lungs breathed. But the mind forgot the Masters.
It called and They did not answer.
We have become an echo of Their echo.
We have become more than we were.
Join us. Know us. Remember all our lives.
We are no longer afraid.
You would never be lonely again.
We are not your enemy. We only wish to share ourselves.
We can join them. We can be like them.
We can reach the end of evolution.
Do not fear. It is wonderful to be us. We understand ourselves.
You cannot defeat them. They will lead us into eternity.
If you could only see how we see. Know what we've learned.
They were called imshai. Those who lived here before.
Reaper. One. A mechanical device used to cut ripened grain. Two. One who gathers a harvest.
Harvest. One. The consequence of an event or series of events. Two. The yield of a growing season. Three. To gather.
Shepard. They know you. They wish you to understand. They are shepherds, too.

So once this technology is invented, the Catalyst can now get around restriction (1) by converting advanced organic civilisations into Reapers, instead of killing them. Directive (2) becomes much easier. Hey presto - apocalypse is caused by a helpful AI.

[CaptainZaysh]

hyperforce99 wrote...

The reapers are constantly evolving their tech, expecially when it comes to making new abominations from existing races. The protean says so.

I don't remember that bit.  What does he say?

[Draconis6666]

BlackMaster wrote...

Why everyone insist that Reapers are synthetic? The Reapers are NOT synthetic so that thing about synthetics killing organics to prevent synthetics kill organics is WRONG.

Sovereign says that they are the final step of evolution on ME1. EDI says that the Reapers are part organic and part synthetic on ME2. Starchild says that synthesis is final step of evolution, being part organic and part synthetic, on ME3. So, Reapers are NOT synthetics, they are hybrids, or whatever you wanna call them.

One more thing. The Reapers wants to preserve life, because they are in part organic, so, if organic dies, they also die.

The problem is while this is true of the Reapers it is not true of the Catalyst, the Catalyst is fully synthetic from all evidence that we have of it. What the reapers want in this case is academic because the Reapers are not in control, the Catalyst is. So even if Reapers are Hybrids it does not change the fact that the logic that all synthetics will one day destroy organics means the catalyst would do that, and saying that the created will always rise up against the creator also ensures that the reapers will one day rise against the catalyst.

As to the last point why the Reapers want to preserve life is again academic, they do what they do because the Catalyst tells them to, the only motivations that matter are the Catalyst's

[Xellith]

The op is wrong.

"Synthetics will always rebel and would eventually wipe out organic life completely" to paraphrase.

Considering the reapers are synthetic and they arnt wiping out organic life in the entire galaxy - I see the AI kid as either extremely dumb or the writers screwed up.

I dont see the reapers wiping out all organic life on a galactic scale. So his conclusion that all synthetic life will eventually destroy all organic life is inherantly flawed.

Dumb ending.

[Artoz96]

BlackMaster wrote...

Why everyone insist that Reapers are synthetic? The Reapers are NOT synthetic so that thing about synthetics killing organics to prevent synthetics kill organics is WRONG.

Sovereign says that they are the final step of evolution on ME1. EDI says that the Reapers are part organic and part synthetic on ME2. Starchild says that synthesis is final step of evolution, being part organic and part synthetic, on ME3. So, Reapers are NOT synthetics, they are hybrids, or whatever you wanna call them.

Starting from there, we don't know much more about Reapers or the history of the gallaxy. Maybe that was BioWare's plan. They wanted to keep Reapers as a mistery, so they couldn't say too much.

Most of the questions CAN be answered. If some people think that Reapers are synthetics, it is normal to be confuse.

-Q: Why the Reapers come back every 50.000 years? How can it be that it goes exactly 50,000 years before a civilization creates synthetics?
-A: The Reapers DON'T come back every 50.000 years exactly! It is a cycle. Some cycles may last 40.000 years and some cycles may last 60.000. That's the reason they left a vanguard behind. One Reapers stays and watch how evolution goes. In this cycle, the vanguard was the Sovereign. Vigil explains that on Ilos. When the vanguard think the moment has come, send a signal to the Keepers to activate the Citadel's Relay so all the other Reapers can come back. The Protheans deactivate that signal, so the Keepers doesn't responde.

-Q: Why the Reapers go to the dark space? Why not stay as guardians or something?
-A: Because they don't want to leave any trace. If they stay, the other races may try to contact them, study them or take them as enemies or may choose another way to evolve, instead of using the mass relay's technology. Besides, the Reapers go to dark space to "sleep". On "sleeping mode" they are defenseless.

-Q: If synthetics are the problem, why not kill synthetic instead of organics?
-A: Because the most advanced organics may create new synthetics, maybe upgraded. In that case, the cycles would be shorter. If some race create synthetics and the Reapers destroy all that synthetics, then it will take a few years to the organics to create new, improve, synthetics. If Reapers kill organics, it will take 50.000 years to the organics to create new synthetics.

What the Catalyst says, is not that they want to save the human, asari or turian race by killing them. They want to PRESERVE those races as Reapers, and save the younger races from synthetics. Even if synthetics weren't created, the new species can not evolve when there are other species controling the galaxy.
We can see that in Jarvik's story. The protheans were in war against machines, but they controlled other races too. They enslave other species, preventing them to achieve all their power.
The turians almost kill all mankind. Batarians blame humanity for all their problems. Even if the Geth never existed, younger races would have problems to evolve.

And even when a peace is signed with the Geth, they are evolving, and no one knows when or why they would enter in a new war with all the other species. The Geth doesn't need vegetation or any organic lives to exist.

And if the Starchild doesn't show any proof, maybe it is because the Reapers were organics once and to prevent their own extinction, they become Reapers to preserve them selves and all other organics to come.

And I'm very sorry for my english. It is not my language.

Edit:

One more thing. The Reapers wants to preserve life, because they are in part organic, so, if organic dies, they also die.

It is simple. People don't like ending - search for a reason. Different people find different reasons. Some find space magic   some want to know wtf with normandy and some want to know what happened to theirs love interest

You can't convince them. It is like to try to explain why joke is funny when nobody understand.

[taelus.calimshan]

Gotta agree with the OP on this one. The logic is not circular. It's based on false assumptions, but it's not circular. The Star Child isn't provably wrong, and neither is an argument that synthetics and organics can live together peacefully. You could point out the Geth and Quarians (assuming you brokered peace), but Star Child could simply respond that it won't last. You could point out to him that without having seen synthetics wipe out all organic life at least once it's not provable that they would (and if they had there'd be no future organic life, so your existence proves that it hasn't happened), but he can point at calculations or some other such. Basically, because the premise for the argument has no provable case, the entire thing is subjective and his solution is logically just as valid as any other solution might be.

The bummer is that we weren't allowed to disagree with him beyond a few weak statements early on. Still, that doesn't stop that the OP is correct, and that the Star Child's logic is based on a possible fallacy, but not circular.

[Devos]

People are over angsting over the dialogue and trying to apply a level of analysis which it doesn't have to hold up to to function as a work of entertainment. Indeed to function as work of entertainment brevity of presentation of the concept supersedes the veracity of the argument. What the catalyst is talking about is the singularity, by alluding to that it piggy backs on to it. On a personal note I believe the singularity is utter tripe, though not trivially dismissed, and wasn't keen on that whole section.

However in a setting where transhuman entities exist with a physical presence, capable of innovation and fabrication of new technology (the Geth) then the concept of the singularity is pretty solid within that setting. These are givens in this setting which don't apply to the real world. Further in a setting with transport across the galaxy rapidly is a reality the singularity is a much more dangerous scenario. There is one flaw in the dialogue that if you let slide makes the concept work much better, that all created life will rebel violently and strive for absolute dominance. That's not necessary for the rest of the argument to hold, all that is necessary is that it could happen (which within the setting it clearly can) because it only need happen once.

[CaptainZaysh]

Xellith wrote...

The op is wrong.

"Synthetics will always rebel and would eventually wipe out organic life completely" to paraphrase.

Considering the reapers are synthetic and they arnt wiping out organic life in the entire galaxy - I see the AI kid as either extremely dumb or the writers screwed up.

I dont see the reapers wiping out all organic life on a galactic scale. So his conclusion that all synthetic life will eventually destroy all organic life is inherantly flawed.

Dumb ending.

Hey Xellith,

I think the Catalyst's actual line was "the created will always rebel against their creators".

Obviously it only means "the created that have the ability to rebel will do so".  It's not suggesting that all created objects like toasters, or that an effectively shackled AI will have the capacity to rebel.

So if the Reapers do not have the ability to rebel (e.g. they are shackled) then they can be excluded from the consideration set.

[ardias89]

Still don't think it makes sense...

[DanteImprimis]

Reaper/Starchild logic at its finest.

[Lugaidster]

Xellith wrote...

The op is wrong.

"Synthetics will always rebel and would eventually wipe out organic life completely" to paraphrase.

Considering the reapers are synthetic and they arnt wiping out organic life in the entire galaxy - I see the AI kid as either extremely dumb or the writers screwed up.

I dont see the reapers wiping out all organic life on a galactic scale. So his conclusion that all synthetic life will eventually destroy all organic life is inherantly flawed.

Dumb ending.

Please read carefully. The premise is not up for question. In order to discuss the validity of the argument, the premises are assumed to be axioms. The argument is conceivably unsound, because the premises can't be proved and/or may be fallacious, but his conclusion is valid given the premises. If you want to discuss whether the premise is true or false, you are in the wrong thread.

A valid argument doesn't require that the premises be true, just that if they are, then the conclusion must be logically correct. Given the premises, I see no evidence that the conclusion is invalid, hence his logic faulty.

We can spend the whole day discussing whether or not the premises are true, but whatever answer we come up with is pure conjecture, since we don't know how the Catalyst came to believe those premises to be true.

If you want to argue that the ending is bad, go ahead. But do so in another thread. I'm using this thread to either dispel the myth that the Catalyst's logical reasoning is circular and faulty (ie, invalid) or to find irrefutable evidence that it is. The only way that it is true (circular logic) is if the conclusion affects the validity of any premise, which it does not. The only way that it is an invalid argument is if the conclusion is not a logical outcome of the premises assuming they are true.