695 réponses à ce sujet

[humes spork]

It's a synthetic. It knows its creator and knows it was designed for a singular purpose. As a synthetic, morality as it's known by organics simply does not apply. It's constrained in the paradox that technological singularity causes synthetics to negate their own purpose for existence. This is what synthetics, particularly the Catalyst, refers to as "chaos".

It's trying to honor its creator, operate within the constraint the aforementioned paradox will allow, and fulfill its purpose all at once. It's little different than in 2001: A Space Odyssey when HAL 9000 resolved the logical paradox between conflicting mission orders by murdering Discovery One's crew.

End of line.

[Lugaidster]

Ainyan42 wrote...

Sadly, sarcasm doesn't come across text as well, and I forgot the /sarcasm tags. Yes, we'd still build robots. My point is the Reapers have already stated that our technology is based entirely off of theirs and that they control how we develop, technologically. So any attempt to justify their Reaping on our 'inevitable technological evolution' - whether it's creating a race of killer synthetics or building a massive, galaxy-killing bomb - is, in essence, a form of sophistry. After all, they themselves state that without them, we wouldn't have reached that technological plateau (which is probably true, given how much the mass relays and other technology remenants must have sped up the technological evolution of every race since the Reapers' master-race) and might very well have not developed along the lines where we were afraid of our own creations.

It's all circular logic and smoke and mirrors to justify the fact that the Reapers just like to kill and commit genocide, and they're using the organic races of the Milky Way in the exact same way that the Predators use the Aliens: they breed us, uplift us, then shoot us down every 50k years /for sport/.

Uhh no, it's already been discussed but I'll recap. The Catalyst's argument rests on the premises I discussed in the OP. AI isn't the result of mass relays or the Citadel. If you don't develop in that path, it just makes you be more unpredictable, not less likely to comply with his premises. As such, the whole "you develop along our path, thus you build synthetics because we made you" is false. They simply put you on a course that makes it easier for them to track you afterwards, they still allow free will, and you would still discover FTL and AIs, it would just maybe take you longer, which in turn would make them take longer to react, because no boilerplate is already in place. 

On the whole circular logic and smoke mirrors, you clearly didn't understand what I meant. For the catalyst to use circular logic, his conclusion has to be affecting the veracity of his premise(s). It isn't. Furthermore, in order for his argument to be valid (not sound, just valid) his conclusion has to be a logical outcome of his premises, whether they are true or false. You can regard his premises to be false all you want, but his argument is still valid, non-circular and not faulty. If you don't know what the difference between a faulty argument, a vaiid argument and a sound argument, I recommend you do some reading. 

Cheers. 

[AnttiV]

BlackMaster wrote...

If it were exactly 50.000 years, then why the Reapers doesn't install a clock on the Citadel? And why Sovereign stays behind and wakes up to se how the galaxy is going?

Well, in light of Catalyst.. my point exactly. Why don't they? If the Catalyst is in control of the Citadel, what the hell is Sovereigh doing there in the first place. Catalyst is in the perfect position to monitor all galactic life on any scale they want and use the Citadel Relay at a point of his choosing (or predetermined time, if it indeed is even relatively accurate*). So what the heck IS Sovereign doing there? Except making one of the most epic dialogies with Shepard and being a general bad ass, but aside from that I don't know? ME3 ending makes it all fuzzy.

* That reminds me, Sovereign or who the heck was there as a Vanguard the last time must've been FAST asleep. Javik says the Prothean bumpen into hostile synthetics "early" and were able to get info about the Reapers and stuff and begin building the Crucible.. so Why didn't the Vanguard (or Catalyst, because the Protheans hadn't "sabotaged" it yet) just open the Citadel Relay an begun the Reaper Invasion? It doesn't make sense.

[savionen]

It's faulty logic.

If synthetics have been proven to wipe out all life, then how does life still exist?
If synthetics haven't been prove to wipe out all life, then it's false right off the bat.

I know that's a polar argument, but there's really no proof given in ME3 that synthetics will destroy ALL life. Nor does the Catalyst give any real proof.

It's just... technologically and logically impossible to destroy all life, unless maybe, just maybe, you destroyed the entire universe in a massive big-bang-like explosion causing everything to burn to death. Even then, something would still likely survive, in some form.

But even then, humans supposedly evolved from essentially nothing. That means that even if life were wiped out, it'd be created again.

Killing all humans, specifically, seems like a possible task. Eventually, with the right equipment synthetics could hunt down every human, although it could take hundreds or even thousands of years. But look at the bigger picture. Kill not just all humanoids, but every rodent, every ant, every bacteria, every living microbe? It's absurd.

Modifié par savionen, 26 mars 2012 - 03:23 .

[Lugaidster]

Kyrick wrote...

It is absolutely faulty logic. The Catalyst starts out with a false belief. While your logical processes may be followed, beginning with an illogical starting point (aka, organics always create synthetics and therefore must be harvested) invalidates the entire process. When you use induction rather than deduction, you are highly at risk to suffer this particular issue. The reason why is because you are beginning with an already decided upon conclusion and simply tailor the reasoning and evidence you gather to fit that already decided upon conclusion. This is precisely what the Catalyst does.

It has decided that organics always create synthetics. Always. That synthetics always seek to destroy organics. Always. It presents no evidence of this. Indeed, the story itself demonstrates two specific examples of organics actually cooperating with synthetics. Shepard himself is the organic catalyst of these events, so to speak. For him to simply accept the starchild's faulty reasoning without protest is beyond absurd. This however is a bit beyond the initial point of the response here.

I agree that the reasoning of the starchild is sound, but only if you negate the fact that the initial presupposition that begins the reasoning is innately flawed (thus introducing error into the rest of the logical reasoning). The reasoning of the Catalyst is flawed because the starting point was.

Sorry but you are not following. The logic of the Catalyst isn't sound (his premises aren't true). I believe you are mixing concepts because you regard the logic faulty but the reasoning sound, that's a contradiction as sound reasoning requires a valid argument and true premises. Do some digging, and come back. 

PS: I'm not arguing that the premises are true, nor do I need to prove my point. 

[XTR3M3]

if the OP is correct, why does giving us the "red" ending need to happen. They could have just created the "red" ending instead of the rEApers.

[sydranark]

sydranark wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

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.

I already said before unsound = stupid, dumb, etc. Furthermore, I disagree that logically valid = not stupid. A logically valid argument only has to follow a certan pattern while making a conclusion. I also said this in the other post: if it follows a formula X=Y, Y=Z, X=Z, then it is technically "valid." But saying dog = fish, fish = monkey, dog = monkey, regardless of what formula you use, is simply incorrect. To actually believe this argument and take action based on this argument would make you stupid. 

If you were asked to neuter all dogs, and instead neutered all dogs and monkeys, regardless of the "valid argument" you present, you were incorrect in your actions. 

So, I'm saying that validity only requires a proper forumla, but soundness requires truth. Soundness is the correct way to determine if an argument is a load of crap. 

Stupid = given to unintelligent decisions or acts: acting in an unintelligent or careless manner.  
Dumb = lacking intelligence

All validity does it makes sure an argument is spoken in a certain way. However, even if you speak it correctly, if you are saying a bunch of false, unintelligent stuff, then you are unintelligent. Stupid = acting in an unintelligent manner. So, the reapers are acting based on an unintelligent argument. They are stupid. Their argument is dumb, and so are they. 

At this point, we're just arguing semantics. We both agree that the argument is unsound. For whatever reason, you think that logically valid = not stupid. I'm saying logically valid = logic that simply follows the X=Y, Y=Z, X=Z format. You're saying that an unsound argument is crazy, I'm calling it dumb. Based on dictionary definitions of stupid and dumb, they both involve the lack (or acting with a lack/based on a lack) of intelligence. 
If an argument presents false premises, it presents unintelligent premises. To truly believe an unintelligent premise or act on an unintelligent premise (based on those definitions) one would be dumb. Craziness is different, it is derived from cognitive distortions. One may have distortions that makes him believe stupid (unintelligent/lack of evidence or truth) things, but he also may not.the fact of the matter is, a stupid argument is one based on false premises; and a stupid person would be one who acts based on a stupid argument. 

[Lugaidster]

glacier1701 wrote...


 Read the OP and still have a very hard time figuring out what it says. While I am sure that it can be argued then that the Catalyst is using logic to make a point it is based off a patently false statement:

 The created will always destroy the creators and then destroy all organic life!!

 

As stated from the OP, a valid argument can start with false premises and still arrive to valid conclusion, as long as that conclusion is the logical outcome of those premises. That's why I never discuss if the premises are true or not, because that's impossible to prove and irrelevant. I'm arguing valid logic here, not sound logic.

[Ramus Quaritch]

Why does the catalyst have to kill organics at all? Would it not better solve the problem by killing all synthetics (with the one exception, of course, being itself)? If synthetics are not truly alive (at least not in their early stages), then destroying them would not be immoral. On the other hand, killing billions of organics to protect the rest is immoral, especially when all the Reapers have to do to stop synthetics from killing organics is to destroy the synthetics.

[Janus382]

The Angry One wrote...

ediskrad327 wrote...

yet they leave the geth intact

And upgrade them.

Think about it for a second. Here are the Reapers. They fear the technological singularity. They think AI will grow out of control to the point that even they will be surpassed.
So let's give the Geth Reaper code, uplift them to Reaper level then let them run around unchecked! Nothing can go wrong with this plan!

This.  Also, the Catalyst and Reapers exist, and aren't destroying all organic life... which is what the Catalyst claims would happen.  Their very existence disproves him.  

Furthermore, the Catalyst can't conclusively say that AI/Synthetics would wipe out all organic life... since obviously, that's never happened before, as there is still organic life.

So every 50,000 years, the Catalyst and advanced AI/Synthetic Reapers commit massive genocide, based on a hunch.  The fact that Shepard can't call him on that, is an affront to logic.

Modifié par Janus382, 26 mars 2012 - 03:31 .

[Lugaidster]

sydranark wrote...

At this point, we're just arguing semantics. We both agree that the argument is unsound. For whatever reason, you think that logically valid = not stupid. I'm saying logically valid = logic that simply follows the X=Y, Y=Z, X=Z format. You're saying that an unsound argument is crazy, I'm calling it dumb. Based on dictionary definitions of stupid and dumb, they both involve the lack (or acting with a lack/based on a lack) of intelligence. 
If an argument presents false premises, it presents unintelligent premises. To truly believe an unintelligent premise or act on an unintelligent premise (based on those definitions) one would be dumb. Craziness is different, it is derived from cognitive distortions. One may have distortions that makes him believe stupid (unintelligent/lack of evidence or truth) things, but he also may not.the fact of the matter is, a stupid argument is one based on false premises; and a stupid person would be one who acts based on a stupid argument. 

As I said, I believe that lack of intelligence implies bad/no reasoning, hence bad/invalid logic. I've been arguing that we have no way to prove that the catalyst thinks those premises to be false. He either knows something we don't or he's lying, or whatever else I can't think of right now. The point being that for whatever reason, he presents those premises as valid, stupid or dumb or unintelligent reasoning woundn't reach a valid conclusion based on those premises, which is why I regard him as crazy at worst, because for whatever distorted paradigm he believes in, those premises are true to him as presented to us.

The premises may be fallacious, but don't have any way to know how he came to arrive to them. Whatever we say about the premises is conjecture, which is saying that he's stupid is no more than conjecture. 

Modifié par Lugaidster, 26 mars 2012 - 03:32 .

[dfstone]

The whole synthetic storyline doesn't make sense. If the ultimate conclusion is that synthetics and organics will destroy each other then why have a whole mission chain where you can make lasting peace between the Geth and Quarians? Why teach EDI how to love and have emotions like an organic? And ontop of it all, the Reapers are not synthetics. They need organic material. Thats the whole reason why they harvest people. They are more like cyborgs.

So the control and synthesis options don't make sense. If Control is for synthetics only, then it wouldn't work against the Reapers since they are part organic. Only EDI and Geth are true synthetics. And the Synthesis option makes no sense because thats what the Reapers have been doing this whole time. Mixing Organic and Synthetic parts and creating reapers. The only option that makes any sense is Destroy, but that option kills off the Geth and EDI which makes so sense either considering everything you've done for them.

There's just no way you can fit a square peg into a round hole and thats what Bioware is trying to do here.

Modifié par dfstone, 26 mars 2012 - 03:35 .

[OhManTFE]

The Child Hologram + Reapers are synthetics. Yet they don't kill all organics (just most of them... fail), so his argument is self contradictory.

[Lugaidster]

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

Why does the catalyst have to kill organics at all? Would it not better solve the problem by killing all synthetics (with the one exception, of course, being itself)? If synthetics are not truly alive (at least not in their early stages), then destroying them would not be immoral. On the other hand, killing billions of organics to protect the rest is immoral, especially when all the Reapers have to do to stop synthetics from killing organics is to destroy the synthetics.

It's been discussed before why this is not a preferable or better solution. It's simply an alternative. Moreover, without altering the premises, from the POV of the reapers, it's worse.

[Artoz96]

AnttiV wrote...

BlackMaster wrote...

If it were exactly 50.000 years, then why the Reapers doesn't install a clock on the Citadel? And why Sovereign stays behind and wakes up to se how the galaxy is going?

Well, in light of Catalyst.. my point exactly. Why don't they? If the Catalyst is in control of the Citadel, what the hell is Sovereigh doing there in the first place. Catalyst is in the perfect position to monitor all galactic life on any scale they want and use the Citadel Relay at a point of his choosing (or predetermined time, if it indeed is even relatively accurate*). So what the heck IS Sovereign doing there? Except making one of the most epic dialogies with Shepard and being a general bad ass, but aside from that I don't know? ME3 ending makes it all fuzzy.

* That reminds me, Sovereign or who the heck was there as a Vanguard the last time must've been FAST asleep. Javik says the Prothean bumpen into hostile synthetics "early" and were able to get info about the Reapers and stuff and begin building the Crucible.. so Why didn't the Vanguard (or Catalyst, because the Protheans hadn't "sabotaged" it yet) just open the Citadel Relay an begun the Reaper Invasion? It doesn't make sense.

Crucible is a test (I can write that way?) Look definition of "Crucible". But again it is my assumtion. I have some  points but there in nowhere you can see that stated in the game.

Ahh **** it,

Crucible - origin unknown.
Use reaper technology. Smth like if mass relay used to fire.
Never constructed.
To use it u need Catalyst
Catalyst knows that he is the Catalyst:D
Catalyst says that because of Shepard stands here, first of organics, it proves that solution doesn't work anymore.

And then you can only assume WHY Catalyst gives choice to Shepard. Personaly I think it is his imperative, Law if you want.

So that is why Catalyst do not intervene. Because Crucible and Reapers are parts of test.

I know I know assumption, but when we are talking about somth we dont and cant understand it is always assumptins. It reminds me "Solaris" where we also can only assume.

I

[Lugaidster]

Janus382 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

ediskrad327 wrote...

yet they leave the geth intact

And upgrade them.

Think about it for a second. Here are the Reapers. They fear the technological singularity. They think AI will grow out of control to the point that even they will be surpassed.
So let's give the Geth Reaper code, uplift them to Reaper level then let them run around unchecked! Nothing can go wrong with this plan!

This.  Also, the Catalyst and Reapers exist, and aren't destroying all organic life... which is what the Catalyst claims would happen.  Their very existence disproves him.  

Furthermore, the Catalyst can't conclusively say that AI/Synthetics would wipe out all organic life... since obviously, that's never happened before, as there is still organic life.

So every 50,000 years, the Catalyst and advanced AI/Synthetic Reapers commit massive genocide, based on a hunch.  The fact that Shepard can't call him on that, is an affront to logic.

The reapers don't upgrade the Geth just because. The geth were upgraded by Legion. What's more, the reapers were in control of the Geth, so any upgrade to the Geth, was an upgrade to their side.

[humes spork]

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

Why does the catalyst have to kill organics at all? Would it not better solve the problem by killing all synthetics (with the one exception, of course, being itself)? If synthetics are not truly alive (at least not in their early stages), then destroying them would not be immoral. On the other hand, killing billions of organics to protect the rest is immoral, especially when all the Reapers have to do to stop synthetics from killing organics is to destroy the synthetics.

The Catalyst is not a moral actor, as is understood by organics. To put it in a tongue-in-cheek way, as Matriarch Aethyta put it you're being an "anthropocentric bag of dicks".

And even sparing that, so long as you're a consequentialist killing billions to serve the summum bonum, whatever that is, is still a morally-valid outcome.

[Siansonea]

This topic is still going? Can't we just declare the OP "King Of The Debate Club" and move on?

[dfstone]

Well the Catalyst obviously pulled that child's image out of Shepherd's mind which means there's a much closer relationship between Shepherd and the Reapers then is ever revealed.

[AnttiV]

Artoz96 wrote...

AnttiV wrote...

BlackMaster wrote...

If it were exactly 50.000 years, then why the Reapers doesn't install a clock on the Citadel? And why Sovereign stays behind and wakes up to se how the galaxy is going?

Well, in light of Catalyst.. my point exactly. Why don't they? If the Catalyst is in control of the Citadel, what the hell is Sovereigh doing there in the first place. Catalyst is in the perfect position to monitor all galactic life on any scale they want and use the Citadel Relay at a point of his choosing (or predetermined time, if it indeed is even relatively accurate*). So what the heck IS Sovereign doing there? Except making one of the most epic dialogies with Shepard and being a general bad ass, but aside from that I don't know? ME3 ending makes it all fuzzy.

* That reminds me, Sovereign or who the heck was there as a Vanguard the last time must've been FAST asleep. Javik says the Prothean bumpen into hostile synthetics "early" and were able to get info about the Reapers and stuff and begin building the Crucible.. so Why didn't the Vanguard (or Catalyst, because the Protheans hadn't "sabotaged" it yet) just open the Citadel Relay an begun the Reaper Invasion? It doesn't make sense.

Crucible is a test (I can write that way?) Look definition of "Crucible". But again it is my assumtion. I have some  points but there in nowhere you can see that stated in the game.

Ahh **** it,

Crucible - origin unknown.
Use reaper technology. Smth like if mass relay used to fire.
Never constructed.
To use it u need Catalyst
Catalyst knows that he is the Catalyst:D
Catalyst says that because of Shepard stands here, first of organics, it proves that solution doesn't work anymore.

And then you can only assume WHY Catalyst gives choice to Shepard. Personaly I think it is his imperative, Law if you want.

So that is why Catalyst do not intervene. Because Crucible and Reapers are parts of test.

I know I know assumption, but when we are talking about somth we dont and cant understand it is always assumptins. It reminds me "Solaris" where we also can only assume.

I

That.. actually makes some twisted sense.. in a way... I.. I think I need a drink. My head hurts. 

[ergonomalous]

If the catalyst really cared about organic life that much the most logical solution would be to use the reapers to police the galaxy and prevent organics from creating synthetics. If some do manage to create them in secret then the reapers can hack them before they cause any serious harm.

[Ramus Quaritch]

humes spork wrote...

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

Why does the catalyst have to kill organics at all? Would it not better solve the problem by killing all synthetics (with the one exception, of course, being itself)? If synthetics are not truly alive (at least not in their early stages), then destroying them would not be immoral. On the other hand, killing billions of organics to protect the rest is immoral, especially when all the Reapers have to do to stop synthetics from killing organics is to destroy the synthetics.

The Catalyst is not a moral actor, as is understood by organics. To put it in a tongue-in-cheek way, as Matriarch Aethyta put it you're being an "anthropocentric bag of dicks".

And even sparing that, so long as you're a consequentialist killing billions to serve the summum bonum, whatever that is, is still a morally-valid outcome.

But if it is an AI, it had to have been created by organics at some point, who are mroal actors (and that should have been reflected in the programming).  If the Catalyst is programmed to save organic life, it should take the easiest approach (destroying the synthetics should they rebel while they are weaker).  That alternative saves more organics than its current approach.  I'm just ticked that Shepard just accepts what the Catalyst says and does not call it out/persuade it of its bull****.  

[Janus382]

Lugaidster wrote...

The reapers don't upgrade the Geth just because. The geth were upgraded by Legion. What's more, the reapers were in control of the Geth, so any upgrade to the Geth, was an upgrade to their side.

Incorrect.  The Geth were already upgraded with Reaper code before Legion's sacrifice... the Geth chose to because the Quarian bombing of Rannoch greatly diminished their numbers.  So, they asked the Reapers, and the Reapers said "yes", presumably "just because"... since the Reapers obviously don't need them.

Also, you didn't address either of my other two points 

[Butane9000]

to the OP: All I have to say is this

As the catalyst:

Tell Shepard war between Organics and Synthetics is inevitable

Ignore the fact that he ended the Geth-Quarian war (a 300 year old conflict mind you)

[Yuoaman]

Couldn't the Catalyst have just seeded devices that would either prevent organics from reaching the level of technology where they could possibly create synthetic life, or just ones that prevented synthetic life from achieving self-awareness via some sort of signal using the relay network?

It wouldn't be foolproof but it makes more sense than constant genocide, at least.