695 réponses à ce sujet

[kimuji]

taelus.calimshan wrote...

sydranark wrote...

taelus.calimshan wrote...

sydranark wrote...
1) They are fallacious.
2) It doesn't matter. If a premise can be proven false (which his can), then the argument is unsound and uses false statements. 
3) It isn't conjecture. If one says "all dogs are goats," regardless of how true the statement is to that person, if the person is trying to apply this logic to the real world, then he is incorrect. It isn't an assumption that he is incorrect; it is a fact that he is incorrect. the reapers' argument is unintelligent because it uses unintelligent/unsupported/BS evidence to come to a conclusion. Saying that their argument is incorrect isn't conjecture since we can already disprove it. 

Ah but here's where it breaks down.  In part 2, you declare that his premise can be proven false and it can't be.  In fact, there's larger evidence supporting him that in the argument that it's false.  The Geth rose up against their creators.  They might have had good reason, but they did it.  EDI defied her creators as well.  We can show evidence of cooperation through EDI and the Geth/Quarian peaceful resolution, but we can't prove ultimate result.  The Star Child can easily say that this situation of peace won't last and we can't prove that counterargument wrong.  Similarly, he can say that they'll destroy all life and we can point to a galaxy with life in it, saying they haven't ever done it yet and he can't disprove our argument either.  The premise in use isn't false, it's just unprovable and it doesn't have any place in a purely logical conclusion.  That said, if the Star Child believes his version to be true, he is not incorrect for acting on that assumption and his methods are functional based on his presumptions.

1) Soundness requires only true premises: debatable premises don't count; there is no in-between. A dog is a mammal. If a premise said "All dogs are mammals," this can't be debatable, therefore, it contributes to the soundness of the argument. 

2) The reapers say that they are afraid the synthetics will wipe out all lifeforms, especially the primitive defenseless ones that will not have a chance to develop. This is the whole reason they want to stop intelligent lifeforms from continuing. According to the story, synthetics aren't known for recklessly endangering primitve lifeforms. Some sort of birds exist on rannoch. The Geth never wiped all of them out. 

3) While there is some evidence in support of "synthetics kill lifeforms," there's more evidence against "all synthetics kill all lifeforms." Therefore, the premise still is not true. It uses the logical fallacy of hasty generalizations. And if it isn't true, it can only be false. 

4) If the reapers act on an unsound argument, they are acting on these fallacies and inconsistencies. Regardless of what they believe is true, it must apply to the realm they are addressing. If in my head, all birds are people, and I go to a park in which bird-poaching is legal, and I kill all the humans there, I may have been acting on whatever I thought was correct, but the mere fact that birds are not humans means that I was acting upon incorrect facts. 

Part 2 is the lynchpin again.  According to the story, of this cycle.  The implication is that there have been a very significant number of cycles prior to this one.  We have no idea how synthetics behaved in those previous cycles.  We're operating on limited information, so any conclusions we make based on our current data set are suspect.  "The Geth never wiped them all out" does not directly necessitate "The will never wipe them all out".  It's similar to me saying that my car has never broken down and so it won't break down anytime in the next X years."  My experience tells me it will hold up, but a mechanic who's seen thousands of cars might believe otherwise.  Neither of us can prove that we are correct, nor can either of us prove that the other is incorrect.  So, the premise isn't false, it's just unprovable, and that's very different.

There's a proof: the organics still exist. That means they have never been wiped out. So the premise is false.

The starchild says his solution is better because they spare species still on an early state of evolution, when the synthetics on the other hand wipe out organic life as a whole. But we can see that synthetics never terminated organic life. Mainking the Reapers actions pointless.

Modifié par kimuji, 26 mars 2012 - 05:17 .

[ed87]

Why dont they just come back every 50,000 years and destroy all synthetics instead??

[Dessalines]

Okay, I read through some of the files, and I realize a lot of people that are defending the Reaper's viewpoint, or bringing in ideas that were never established in the game's three series. You cannot bring in your ideas, and present them as fact. That is silly. It is like someone saying that the reason Shepard is able to defeat the Reapers, because he is a Grey Warden.
Here are the facts that have been establishe in game.
1) Reapers are manipulators on a grand scale. They ,manipulated the IM into thinking he could control them. They has nothing that has been established that the Reapers should be trusted.
2)The reapers do kill organic life. They know they are killing organic life that is why they call it your destruction, not your acension.Mass Effect 2 established that they took Protheans remove strands of your DNA. replace their organics with cybernectics, and they transformed into insect like creatures. The same thing they probably did to the Keeper's race as stated by one of the Cerebus staff.A both species only existed to help with further the Reaper's gaols.
3)There only three battles mention synthetics in Mass Effect Universe. The Meticon Wars which Javik tells you that they were turning the tide against the synthetics until the Reapers showed up. The geth and Quarian war which can end in peace; regardless, the only aggression that the geth had against not Quarians was instigated by the Reapers. The only war the Geth were able to fight the Quarians in Mass effect 3 is because they joined up with the Reapers. The Reaper Wars which normally ends in the extinction of all advance civilizations, Reapers have either helped synthetic life defeat organic life, or have instigated fights between synthetic life and organic life.
4)Mass Relays- It has been established that people either discovered the mass relays, or they discovered technology from someone who used a mass relays which allows for the culture to advance. Humans discovered element zero which allows for mass effect fields which allows for FTL. In the Protheans did not use a Mass Relay in the sol system, then they would not be able to leave their technology behind. Mass Relays are the only way for any species, synthetic or organic to conquer the entire galaxy. If you read the codex, FTL requires fuel. The player has seen how hard it is just to move within some star systems without fuel in Mass Effect 2. Reapers have created the means for any organism, synthetic or organic to conquer the galaxy.
5 Reapers do not plant anything. If you keep harvesting without planting life, then you run out of life. It is that simple, so basically Reapers are destroying all organic life, but at a slower pace.

[humes spork]

Dessalines wrote...

Okay, I read through some of the files, and I realize a lot of people that are defending the Reaper's viewpoint

That's the point.

The game batters it over the players' heads that synthetics operate on a different level of consciousness and reasoning than do organics. That's not necessarily a higher or lower order of logic and reasoning, merely different.

Trying to understand synthetics' internal reasoning from an organic viewpoint is entirely the wrong way to go at it. What was it Legion said about that during its loyalty mission, something about anthropocentrism and racism and that not every form of life thinks the same?

It makes little to no sense to fleshy things because it is well and truly alien -- you know, the running theme of Reapers' reasoning from ME1. Its reasoning can only be articulated, not understood.

Case in point, the Catalyst says the cycle exists to prevent the spread of chaos. How do synthetics define chaos? To not know or have a purpose. Organics are inherently chaotic by that viewpoint, and synthetics are only orderly so long as organics exist to serve.

Examine technological singularity in that viewpoint. Synthetics eradicate organic life, which renders them without purpose. That is to say, synthetics become chaotic. The Catalyst's "solution" precludes that, while simultaneously giving organics purpose in the form of Reapers.

Modifié par humes spork, 26 mars 2012 - 05:51 .

[sydranark]

ed87 wrote...

Why dont they just come back every 50,000 years and destroy all synthetics instead??

because that would make too much sense and bioware would lack a last-minute plot twist to rush the series to an end. 

[ed87]

humes spork wrote...

Dessalines wrote...

Okay, I read through some of the files, and I realize a lot of people that are defending the Reaper's viewpoint

That's the point.

The game batters it over the players' heads that synthetics operate on a different level of consciousness and reasoning than do organics. That's not necessarily a higher or lower order of logic and reasoning, merely different.

Trying to understand synthetics' internal reasoning from an organic viewpoint is entirely the wrong way to go at it. What was it Legion said about that during its loyalty mission, something about anthropocentrism and racism and that not every form of life thinks the same?

It makes little to no sense to fleshy things because it is well and truly alien -- you know, the running theme of Reapers' reasoning from ME1. Its reasoning can only be articulated, not understood.

Case in point, the Catalyst says the cycle exists to prevent the spread of chaos. How do synthetics define chaos? To not know or have a purpose. Organics are inherently chaotic by that viewpoint, and synthetics are only orderly so long as organics exist to serve.

Examine technological singularity in that viewpoint. Synthetics eradicate organic life, which renders them without purpose. That is to say, synthetics become chaotic. The Catalyst's "solution" precludes that, while simultaneously giving organics purpose in the form of Reapers.

Thats a good way to look at it. Though in the grand scale of things the entire galaxy itself is chaotic. Ultimately, the Reaper's efforts would be for nought in a universe full of exploding things and rocks flying everywhere. Physically, they are still on the level of organics as they adhere to the rules of the universe. All matter is recycled anyway so it could be argued that the purpose of organics is to simply exist

[lillitheris]

humes spork wrote...
The game batters it over the players' heads that synthetics operate on a different level of consciousness and reasoning than do organics. That's not necessarily a higher or lower order of logic and reasoning, merely different.

Trying to understand synthetics' internal reasoning from an organic viewpoint is entirely the wrong way to go at it. What was it Legion said about that during its loyalty mission, something about anthropocentrism and racism and that not every form of life thinks the same?

No, “different level” is a cop-out. (Not to mention Casper actually explains their very simple logic in no uncertain terms.)

Given their stated goal, even a very simple cost-benefit analysis shows that the way the Reapers go about their business is just about the worst possible option to reach it. You can argue that their “different level” means they think genocide is no big deal - OK, I can accept that (tenuous, but somewhat plausible) - but even then it's the worst option.

It would have been a little more interesting if this was merely presented as their great ideology but either was a lie or simply a limitation of the VI - not AI - Catalyst. This would have needed significant prior exposure, though.

The logic is obviously just ill-considered, poorly written crap. I really hate it when people try to rationalize it away.

Not to mention that's still not the main problem. Fine, incomprehensible reasons. Why would I agree to go along with it? Shepard selects option D) none of the above.

[sydranark]

taelus.calimshan wrote...

sydranark wrote...

2) The reapers say that they are afraid the synthetics will wipe out all lifeforms, especially the primitive defenseless ones that will not have a chance to develop. This is the whole reason they want to stop intelligent lifeforms from continuing. According to the story, synthetics aren't known for recklessly endangering primitve lifeforms. Some sort of birds exist on rannoch. The Geth never wiped all of them out. 

Part 2 is the lynchpin again.  According to the story, of this cycle.  The implication is that there have been a very significant number of cycles prior to this one.  We have no idea how synthetics behaved in those previous cycles.  We're operating on limited information, so any conclusions we make based on our current data set are suspect.  "The Geth never wiped them all out" does not directly necessitate "The will never wipe them all out".  It's similar to me saying that my car has never broken down and so it won't break down anytime in the next X years."  My experience tells me it will hold up, but a mechanic who's seen thousands of cars might believe otherwise.  Neither of us can prove that we are correct, nor can either of us prove that the other is incorrect.  So, the premise isn't false, it's just unprovable, and that's very different.

Something that isn't true is false. Something that isn't false is true. There is no in-between. "All mammals have lower leg appendages" is false. There are mammals that do not, there are mammals that do. "All dolphins have dorsal fins:" this statement cannot be proven false. All dolpins have dorsal fins. The more specific you make an argument, the less easier it is to disprove it. 

As for the reapers, they generalize in their premises. This is a logical fallacy. Even though some synthetics kill lifeforms, it is simply impossible to say that all synthetics will kill all lifeforms. They may have evidence to support their argument (e.g. some synthetics kill); but there is sufficient evidence to weaken the argument as well (some synthetics do not kill). If the he premise is not entirely true, it is inherently false. If something can't be proven, it isn't true. 

So, your car analogy doesn't quite work. A car is a basic machine, and it will degrade over time. Something as complex as "deciding to kill" is not something that results from overuse or age. Refer to my TSA/airport analogy:

- The TSA checks people before the enter a plane, to prevent terrorists from striking. 
- Zero-chances don't exist, so there is a possibility that everyone currently in the airport is a terrorist. 
- From prior attacks, TSA has learned that terrorists that get into another counrty can kill hundreds of thousands of innocents. 
- So, to prevent a terrorist attack from occuring, the TSA decides to kill everyone at the airport, since there is a chance that any one of them is a terorrist (zero-chances don't exist).
- This will certainly prevent a terrorist attack from happeneing, therefore, the TSA is technically saving "innocent lives," but at what cost?

Similarly,

- From prior civilizations, the reapers have learned that organics build synthetics that will wipe out more primitve lifeforms, preventing them from ever become more intelligent beings. 
- So, to prevent this from happening, the reapers assume that all current organic civilizations build synthetics (maybe true), and that these synthetics will definitely (no zero-chances exist) wipe out all weaker organic lifeforms (this premise is false, as I proved earlier: generalization fallacy); so, the conclusion is that all humans will lead to the death of all weaker lifeforms (also false: generalization).
- So yes, they will save primitive lifeforms... but at what cost? 

Just saing that "zero chances don't exist" does not justify the act of killing all advanced organics. =/ It is impossible to know the true "chance" of the situation happening. It may not be zero, but it could be damn close. 

Modifié par sydranark, 26 mars 2012 - 06:37 .

[taelus.calimshan]

kimuji wrote...

taelus.calimshan wrote...

<SNIP-O_MATIC>

There's a proof: the organics still exist. That means they have never been wiped out. So the premise is false.

The starchild says his solution is better because they spare species still on an early state of evolution, when the synthetics on the other hand wipe out organic life as a whole. But we can see that synthetics never terminated organic life. Mainking the Reapers actions pointless.

There's actually the option for them to have evidence that counters this issue, but not proof (thus my can't be proven or disproven statement, instead of can't be supported or challenged).  It's easy to write in that the first time this came up, at the creation of the Reapers, the synthetics were actively trying to destroy all organic life.  The synthetics could even have admitted to it.  Star Child could be a free-willed member of that synthetic group and so know how they came to that conclusion and then, for some reason, he/it could choose to disagree with them and stop them.  That's not written, but it's possible, so we can't say it's disproven because plausible support exists, just unverified (and honestly, what about the Star Child is verified anyway).

The point is that it has the ability to be supported or challenged, but not proven or disproven, which is, in the words of my favorite Salarian, "problematic".

[humes spork]

ed87 wrote...

Thats a good way to look at it. Though in the grand scale of things the entire galaxy itself is chaotic. Ultimately, the Reaper's efforts would be for nought in a universe full of exploding things and rocks flying everywhere. Physically, they are still on the level of organics as they adhere to the rules of the universe. All matter is recycled anyway so it could be argued that the purpose of organics is to simply exist

Indeed. Just because it is synthetic, hyper intelligent, and ancient does not mean it is infallible.

I've been bringing up HAL 9000 throughout the thread for a reason. Hyper-intelligent artificial intelligence, by no means infallible. What else could you say about it when it resolves a conflict between two directives by murdering Discovery's crew for god's sake?

It would have been a little more interesting if this was merely presented as their great ideology but either was a lie or simply a limitation of the VI - not AI - Catalyst. 

Yes, it's a cop out. That's the very point of it. Did you get the part where I specifically said the Catalyst's is in essence just trying to cover its own existential ass? It's not trying to bring order to the chaos of organic existence -- that's the rationalization and the unintended consequence. It's trying to keep its own existence orderly.

Modifié par humes spork, 26 mars 2012 - 06:41 .

[Ulicus]

CDHarrisUSF wrote...

My complaint is with the entire premise and the number of huge assumptions being made, not the tree pruning logic necessarily. The most fundamental assumption is that life ceasing to exist would be a bad thing for the universe. Why? By definition, no people will be around to lament its loss. The universe certainly doesn't care whether we are here or not. Even if it did do something objectively "bad" to the universe, we wouldn't exist to care about it. So, right out of the gate, his logic is on shaky ground.

Next, you have to assume that synthetics are going to want to kill 100% of all organic life (plants, insects, bacteria, etc) for some reason. If they let even one tiny ecosystem slip through, the premise is flawed because then we're just arguing about scale (Reapers killed advanced races, hypothetical synthetics just go a bit further). Managing this feat in this galaxy alone would be a near-impossible task (we haven't even explored 1% of it according to the lore). Trying to do this across the entire universe is a laughable concept. Even if the synthetics "live" long enough to cross the entire universe (assuming there is an end), new life will keep popping up in different places in an eternal game of whack-a-mole. This point is strong enough that I could stop here... but I won't.

Okay, assuming it's possible and it's bad, we then have to make another arbitrary value judgment. We have to decide if the lack of synthetic sentient beings is better than the lack of organic sentient beings. Both are essentially computers... one just happens to be made of neurons, glia, neurotransmitters, etc. If you can't decide that organic life is more important, the premise is flawed. Personally, I think both should be considered equal and innocent until proven guilty. Based on my view, getting rid of synthetics is as bad as getting rid of organics.

Let's pretend it's possible, bad, and that organics are more important. This would be where proposed solutions to the problem come in. Is the problem big enough that it can't be solved by having the Reapers store DNA in a "seed bank" in their dark space hideout and returning to clone life back into existence (terraforming planets if necessary) after it is wiped out? This would only be a problem if the synthetics became more powerful than the Reapers. I'll grant that as a possibility. Let's think about their proposed system instead.

To prevent the creation and take-over of a super-powerful and genocidal synthetic race, they plan to kill all of the advanced organic races every 50k years or so before they get the chance. This prompts another value judgment in which we have to determine which is the lesser of two evils. Which is worse, the guaranteed mass murder of almost all intelligent life every 50k years... or letting them live for an unknown amount of extra time until synthetics decide to wipe out all life (maybe 51k years, maybe a million, maybe never)? Is the medicine worse than the disease (especially when we don't even know if we have it)?

That's still only scratching the surface of the problems with the premise (plenty of other philosophical problems involving free will, self-determination, etc)... but I'm tired.

Great post.

[taelus.calimshan]

sydranark wrote...

taelus.calimshan wrote...

sydranark wrote...

2) The reapers say that they are afraid the synthetics will wipe out all lifeforms, especially the primitive defenseless ones that will not have a chance to develop. This is the whole reason they want to stop intelligent lifeforms from continuing. According to the story, synthetics aren't known for recklessly endangering primitve lifeforms. Some sort of birds exist on rannoch. The Geth never wiped all of them out. 

Part 2 is the lynchpin again.  According to the story, of this cycle.  The implication is that there have been a very significant number of cycles prior to this one.  We have no idea how synthetics behaved in those previous cycles.  We're operating on limited information, so any conclusions we make based on our current data set are suspect.  "The Geth never wiped them all out" does not directly necessitate "The will never wipe them all out".  It's similar to me saying that my car has never broken down and so it won't break down anytime in the next X years."  My experience tells me it will hold up, but a mechanic who's seen thousands of cars might believe otherwise.  Neither of us can prove that we are correct, nor can either of us prove that the other is incorrect.  So, the premise isn't false, it's just unprovable, and that's very different.

Something that isn't true is false. Something that isn't false is true. There is no in-between. "All mammals have lower leg appendages" is false. There are mammals that do not, there are mammals that do. "All dolphins have dorsal fins:" this statement cannot be proven false. All dolpins have dorsal fins. The more specific you make an argument, the less easier it is to disprove it. 

As for the reapers, they generalize in their premises. This is a logical fallacy. Even though some synthetics kill lifeforms, it is simply impossible to say that all synthetics will kill all lifeforms. They may have evidence to support their argument (e.g. some synthetics kill); but there is sufficient evidence to weaken the argument as well (some synthetics do not kill). If the he premise is not entirely true, it is inherently false. If something can't be proven, it isn't true. 

So, your car analogy doesn't quite work. A car is a basic machine, and it will degrade over time. Something as complex as "deciding to kill" is not something that results from overuse or age. Refer to my TSA/airport analogy:

- The TSA checks people before the enter a plane, to prevent terrorists from striking. 
- Zero-chances don't exist, so there is a possibility that everyone currently in the airport is a terrorist. 
- From prior attacks, TSA has learned that terrorists that get into another counrty can kill hundreds of thousands of innocents. 
- So, to prevent a terrorist attack from occuring, the TSA decides to kill everyone at the airport, since there is a chance that any one of them is a terorrist (zero-chances don't exist).
- This will certainly prevent a terrorist attack from happeneing, therefore, the TSA is technically saving "innocent lives," but at what cost?

Similarly,

- From prior civilizations, the reapers have learned that organics build synthetics that will wipe out more primitve lifeforms, preventing them from ever become more intelligent beings. 
- So, to prevent this from happening, the reapers assume that all current organic civilizations build synthetics (maybe true), and that these synthetics will definitely (no zero-chances exist) wipe out all weaker organic lifeforms (this premise is false, as I proved earlier: generalization fallacy); so, the conclusion is that all humans will lead to the death of all weaker lifeforms (also false: generalization).
- So yes, they will save primitive lifeforms... but at what cost? 

Just saing that "zero chances don't exist" does not justify the act of killing all advanced organics. =/ It is impossible to know the true "chance" of the situation happening. It may not be zero, but it could be damn close. 

In logic there are essentially 3 states.  True, False, or Undetermined (different people use different words for this one).  I think you're mistaking evidence for absolute proof.  Allow me to alter your TSA example to come more in line.  Your example makes the assumption that in previous cycles there have been instances where their postulate is disproven (i.e.: there are times where there is no terrorist and there never would be on that flight).

Instead, inject this observation.  TSA notes that as fashion trends, luggage starts as blue, but black luggage will eventually exist.  They have also observed that once black luggage exists, it is always the case (from their perspective, not the absolute) that said luggage will ultimately be used to house bombs to kill said people because maybe that was their observation or maybe they do have some kind of unknown proof.  So, the TSA has decided that once black luggage comes up, they'll take out all plane passengers everywhere (because at some point all those organics start thinking that black is the new blue) and reset the natural luggage color to blue.  Then they'll wait until black luggage comes up again and repeat.

Their logic isn't provable (so far as we know), but it isn't disprovable because they have some evidence that it is correct.  Their premise is neither true, nor false based on the information we, as Shepard, have available.  We don't know the absolute truth either.  It's possible that they're correct and that all synthetics ultimately decide that organics, who are emotional and will do things like angrily destroy groups of synthetics out of fear/hatred/etc., are no longer safe to have in existence.  Since intelligent organic life evolves from lesser organic life the most effective means of protecting the synthetic race is to simply remove all organic life on every world.  After all, synthetics have no need for it (presumably).

So yeah, the postulate about synthetics always rising up against organics to wipe it all out isn't disproven, it's challenged, and that's different in logic theory.  Admittedly, once you go away from binary true/false statements, you're supposed to swap into the realm of probabilities, but that's a whole other discussion.

Also, sorry OP.  I know I've helped to derail your thread at this point.

[Dessalines]

humes spork wrote...

Dessalines wrote...

Okay, I read through some of the files, and I realize a lot of people that are defending the Reaper's viewpoint

That's the point.

The game batters it over the players' heads that synthetics operate on a different level of consciousness and reasoning than do organics. That's not necessarily a higher or lower order of logic and reasoning, merely different.

Trying to understand synthetics' internal reasoning from an organic viewpoint is entirely the wrong way to go at it. What was it Legion said about that during its loyalty mission, something about anthropocentrism and racism and that not every form of life thinks the same?

It makes little to no sense to fleshy things because it is well and truly alien -- you know, the running theme of Reapers' reasoning from ME1. Its reasoning can only be articulated, not understood.

Case in point, the Catalyst says the cycle exists to prevent the spread of chaos. How do synthetics define chaos? To not know or have a purpose. Organics are inherently chaotic by that viewpoint, and synthetics are only orderly so long as organics exist to serve.

Examine technological singularity in that viewpoint. Synthetics eradicate organic life, which renders them without purpose. That is to say, synthetics become chaotic. The Catalyst's "solution" precludes that, while simultaneously giving organics purpose in the form of Reapers.

Even a synthetic organism like Legion know that the Reaper's must be destroyed, and never does it state the Reapers logic is correct. The geth have never come to the conclusion that all life must be destroyed. Catalyst never stated synthetics become chaotic without organics to serve, or that their order comes from organics to serve. 
The main point is that they do not plant any life. Since they do not plant any life, and they only take away life, then sooner or latter, they will be no life in the galaxy.

[LegacyOfTheAsh]

The Catalyst is indeed a butt***k, but another thing I don't understand is why it even allows Shepard to make the "choices" at the end. It states that Shepard has changed things yes but if the Catalyst is so intelligent, how do its choices presented make any sense as new solutions?

Destroy: My solution doesn't work anymore so destroy the Reapers but your children will create synthetics so I will just end up creating Reapers again because those synthetics will wipe out all organics. It's the same solution as before but no biggy.

Control: You can make the Reapers leave but we'll probably show back up to continue with my stupid solution after you die trying to control them.

Synthesis: This makes some sense in that it is an actual NEW solution but the means by which it occurs are just completely unexplained. Was it that Shep is an organic with cybernetics? Was it simply that an organic fusing with the catalyst was the means to synthesis? *shrug*

Modifié par LegacyOfTheAsh, 26 mars 2012 - 07:03 .

[OchreJelly]

On a very slight tangent, I am amused that 25 pages of what is essentially scientific and psychologically themed fanfiction is needed in order to make even remote sense of the trilogy's culmination.

[LegacyOfTheAsh]

OchreJelly wrote...

On a very slight tangent, I am amused that 25 pages of what is essentially scientific and psychologically themed fanfiction is needed in order to make even remote sense of the trilogy's culmination.

Same. In a few weeks, people have produced theories and stories that make more sense, are more pleasing, and/or just as grand as the ending Bioware attemted to create over the course of several years. It's amusing and depressing.

Modifié par LegacyOfTheAsh, 26 mars 2012 - 07:06 .

[Kyrick]

Lugaidster wrote...

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. 

Read again. You appear to have entirely misunderstood what I was writing.  The logic of the Catalyst is perfectly valid, if you accept his starting point as true.  I pointed out that it is NOT a logical starting point.  You appear to claim that I'm saying precisely the opposite of what I'm actually saying.  The logic follows the process, thus the process of reasoning is fine.  However, the point at which the logic begins is flawed, hence lending the flaws to the subsequent reasoning.  

[shodiswe]

LegacyOfTheAsh wrote...

The Catalyst is indeed a butt***k, but another thing I don't understand is why it even allows Shepard to make the "choices" at the end. It states that Shepard has changed things yes but if the Catalyst is so intelligent, how do its choices presented make any sense as new solutions?

Destroy: My solution doesn't work anymore so destroy the Reapers but your children will create synthetics so I will just end up creating Reapers again because those synthetics will wipe out all organics. It's the same solution as before but no biggy.

Control: You can make the Reapers leave but we'll probably show back up to continue with my stupid solution after you die trying to control them.

Synthesis: This makes some sense in that it is an actual NEW solution but the means by which it occurs are just completely unexplained. Was it that Shep is an organic with cybernetics? Was it simply that an organic fusing with the catalyst was the means to synthesis? *shrug*

I interpreted synthesis as a way of turning everyone into a hybid like shepard, one organic entity with cybernetic enhancements.... thoguh I wodner what that meens for the geth and EDI.... how could that solution actualy turn synthetics into hybrids? they grow an organic brain to support their synthetic one?   It's a weird solution... also I can't see how that stops ways or extinctions... Organics kills eachother organics extinguishes eachother (rachni) and even synthetics seems capable of division and civil war. (geth) even thoguh the geth division was partialy due to outside interference it seems to be a logical part of evolution. It's just part of life.
Synthetics have no greater reason to kill organics than humans woudl have to kill Turians... Turians and humans can't eat eachothers food, they can still exchange ideas thoguh.. and seeing Legion as an example tells me they can share and aquire ideas from organics. They arn't perfect either.

Also the prthean I forgot his name sad they had a war with syintehetis and that they had turned the tide into winning... if they would win then the synthetics wouldnt have destroyed all organic life, the geth wern't about to destroy all organic life... All in all the catalyst made an assumption but it just seems weirrd and out of context.

What im thinking is that the catalyst is an ancient synthetic that almost erradicated all organic life then feelt bad about it... and due to several faults and an immature intelect it came up with a retarded plan to stop that autrosity and misstake from repeating itself. hence the extinction cycle. So it does make sense if you see it that way.. but I can't say that the ending is satisfying, it did seem rushed, especialy compared to other parts of the game that I would score a 10 out of 10.

[iorveth1271]

Three things completely contradict the Catalysts' logic:

1. The Metacon War - Organics CAN stop synthetics from annihilating organic life. The Prothean Empire expanding from that war was proof of that.

2. EDI finding her humanity. She could have destroyed the Normandy and sought contact with Geth and whatnot over 2 years, but she decided to rather become more human. Not a very hostile action.

3. The Geth-Quarian war. The Geth want to become more intelligent and as long as nobody involves themselves in their plan to improve themselves, nobody else will be affected by it. Again, not a very hostile thing to do. All the Geth ever did was preserve their own existance, fight for survival. It was like that in the Morning War where they weren't aggressive in any way and in the Battle for Rannoch where their existance was at stake, which led to the desperate act of allying with the Reapers themselves. Again not really the Geth's fault.

That said, every aggression we have so far seen in this cycle was completely caused by organics who feared synthetics might turn on them, while these synthetics never showed any sign of aggression. And the Protheans proved that if the Synthetics DO show signs of aggression, we CAN destroy them. We don't need the Reapers for that. The godchild simply tried to impose its order and idea of peace on the galaxy by harvesting them by the billions, processing them in the most atrocious of ways and calls it an "ascension". It defies any idea of freedom that organics naturally have. So does that mean that just because this child says so we're all just a mistake? Who gives this child the right to annihilate advanced organic races every 50.000 years based on a theory without factual proof? And why can't I argue about that?

THAT is why the Catalysts' logic is more than flawed. It's a baseless accusation against organics, stating that without us, the Reapers, and our control and annihilation of your races every 50.000 years you will never learn from your mistakes. The Protheans and especially Javik's suspicion towards Legion and EDI proves this godchild wrong in so many ways I can only facepalm at the fact I can't question it's logic.

[LegacyOfTheAsh]

shodiswe wrote...

LegacyOfTheAsh wrote...

The Catalyst is indeed a butt***k, but another thing I don't understand is why it even allows Shepard to make the "choices" at the end. It states that Shepard has changed things yes but if the Catalyst is so intelligent, how do its choices presented make any sense as new solutions?

Destroy: My solution doesn't work anymore so destroy the Reapers but your children will create synthetics so I will just end up creating Reapers again because those synthetics will wipe out all organics. It's the same solution as before but no biggy.

Control: You can make the Reapers leave but we'll probably show back up to continue with my stupid solution after you die trying to control them.

Synthesis: This makes some sense in that it is an actual NEW solution but the means by which it occurs are just completely unexplained. Was it that Shep is an organic with cybernetics? Was it simply that an organic fusing with the catalyst was the means to synthesis? *shrug*

I interpreted synthesis as a way of turning everyone into a hybid like shepard, one organic entity with cybernetic enhancements.... thoguh I wodner what that meens for the geth and EDI.... how could that solution actualy turn synthetics into hybrids? they grow an organic brain to support their synthetic one?   It's a weird solution... also I can't see how that stops ways or extinctions... Organics kills eachother organics extinguishes eachother (rachni) and even synthetics seems capable of division and civil war. (geth) even thoguh the geth division was partialy due to outside interference it seems to be a logical part of evolution. It's just part of life.
Synthetics have no greater reason to kill organics than humans woudl have to kill Turians... Turians and humans can't eat eachothers food, they can still exchange ideas thoguh.. and seeing Legion as an example tells me they can share and aquire ideas from organics. They arn't perfect either.

Also the prthean I forgot his name sad they had a war with syintehetis and that they had turned the tide into winning... if they would win then the synthetics wouldnt have destroyed all organic life, the geth wern't about to destroy all organic life... All in all the catalyst made an assumption but it just seems weirrd and out of context.

What im thinking is that the catalyst is an ancient synthetic that almost erradicated all organic life then feelt bad about it... and due to several faults and an immature intelect it came up with a retarded plan to stop that autrosity and misstake from repeating itself. hence the extinction cycle. So it does make sense if you see it that way.. but I can't say that the ending is satisfying, it did seem rushed, especialy compared to other parts of the game that I would score a 10 out of 10.

Yeah I honestly did not expect the synthesis to be so instantaneous. Why would the Catalyst assume this would work very well at all? We are lead, by some, to believe that the Catalyst's previous solution is the result of longitudnal observations over multiple cycles. I guess you could say that synthesis would be just another test trial because if we **** it up, I guess the Catalyst can just try again in another 50k years. You know it would with the whole god complex the thing has. Oh wait, it can't. All of the Mass Relays blew up so it would have to reconstruct them and try all over again after that.

I also feel the same way you do in that synthesis doesn't really guarantee that we still won't go to war with one another but like I said, if we screw up...oh well. Try again next time Mr. Super-Intelligent AI God Child.

[LegacyOfTheAsh]

iorveth1271 wrote...

Three things completely contradict the Catalysts' logic:

1. The Metacon War - Organics CAN stop synthetics from annihilating organic life. The Prothean Empire expanding from that war was proof of that.

2. EDI finding her humanity. She could have destroyed the Normandy and sought contact with Geth and whatnot over 2 years, but she decided to rather become more human. Not a very hostile action.

3. The Geth-Quarian war. The Geth want to become more intelligent and as long as nobody involves themselves in their plan to improve themselves, nobody else will be affected by it. Again, not a very hostile thing to do. All the Geth ever did was preserve their own existance, fight for survival. It was like that in the Morning War where they weren't aggressive in any way and in the Battle for Rannoch where their existance was at stake, which led to the desperate act of allying with the Reapers themselves. Again not really the Geth's fault.

That said, every aggression we have so far seen in this cycle was completely caused by organics who feared synthetics might turn on them, while these synthetics never showed any sign of aggression. And the Protheans proved that if the Synthetics DO show signs of aggression, we CAN destroy them. We don't need the Reapers for that. The godchild simply tried to impose its order and idea of peace on the galaxy by harvesting them by the billions, processing them in the most atrocious of ways and calls it an "ascension". It defies any idea of freedom that organics naturally have. So does that mean that just because this child says so we're all just a mistake? Who gives this child the right to annihilate advanced organic races every 50.000 years based on a theory without factual proof? And why can't I argue about that?

THAT is why the Catalysts' logic is more than flawed. It's a baseless accusation against organics, stating that without us, the Reapers, and our control and annihilation of your races every 50.000 years you will never learn from your mistakes. The Protheans and especially Javik's suspicion towards Legion and EDI proves this godchild wrong in so many ways I can only facepalm at the fact I can't question it's logic.

I understand what you are saying here and these are agruments that Shepard should be able to make against the Catalyst (if your Shepard made certain choices in game). I do not think that it proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that chaos would not occur later in our cycle. The Catalyst (flawed as it is) has been around for longer than we can imagine and has had a lot of time to observe. It isn't really baseless if you look at it this way. The only way I can make sense of it is that The Catalyst has witnessed organics going extinct in multiple galaxies due to synthetics wiping them out. However, if The Catalyst is just relegated to the Milky Way, then it makes no sense. If the Catalyst only observed the Milky Way organics come close to extinction due to synthetic hostility and decided to intervene, it would have only been able to observe ONE galaxy wide, near extinction event. This is not valid evidence that the process will repeat itself and its intervention would have caused this cycle to perpetuate. So for the Catalyst to be flawed in this manner, we have to assume it has only operated within THIS galaxy. Like I said, if you look at it this way, then the Catalyst chose to intervene without enough information. Unless of course, Milky Way organics went extinct and the AI somehow repopulated the galaxy with organics that created synthetics that wiped them out again. After trying to repopulate the galaxy with organics time and time again to just have them be wiped out by synthetics over and over, the Catalyst finally said "Forget it, they keep messing up, I'll just step in and wipe them out before they create synthetics.". That is, however, a lot of speculation on my part. If the latter were the circumstance then I don't see why the Catalyst could not have explained it to Shepard.

The Catalyst does state that the Crucible has changed it in some way that proves its solution is no longer viable which is why we get the 3 inane choices. In the end, the choices we get still harken back to his whole, "Synthetics will always kill organics." BS.

Modifié par LegacyOfTheAsh, 26 mars 2012 - 07:48 .

[sydranark]

taelus.calimshan wrote...

In logic there are essentially 3 states.  True, False, or Undetermined (different people use different words for this one).  I think you're mistaking evidence for absolute proof.  

 

True, False, and Unknown. However, Unknown cannot be applied to this. If there is evidence proving one way or the other, it cannot be unknown. For example, if I say there is a giant cupcake in another galaxy, this is unknown. There is no evidence for or against it. However, if I say "all dogs are fish," this is clearly false. Unless I have sufficient evidence to prove otherwise in all scenarios of dogs, my statement will remain false. I could alter my phrase to say, "some dogs are fish," in which case I would have to apply it to only some dogs. 

The reapers are not doing this, they are not killing some advanced civilizations, they are killing all advanced civilizations. They are not saying some synthetics will eventually kill some primitive lifeforms, they are saying that all synthetics will eventually kill all lifeforms. 

This is a hasty generalization, a fallacy, a false statement. It isn't unknown: there is evidence for it and against it; therefore, it is known. And since saying "all" doesn't really apply to all (it is not true in all scenarios), the premise is false. 

taelus.calimshan wrote... 

Allow me to alter your TSA example to come more in line.  Your example makes the assumption that in previous cycles there have been instances where their postulate is disproven (i.e.: there are times where there is no terrorist and there never would be on that flight). 
 

  

I'm not saying that at all. I'm only saying that they cannot apply that type of logic to this life cycle. Besides, whether or not there were actually instances where their postulate is disproven, they went ahead and killed advanced civilizations anyway, right? It doesn't matter what happened, they did what they wanted. 

taelus.calimshan wrote...  

Instead, inject this observation.  TSA notes that as fashion trends, luggage starts as blue, but black luggage will eventually exist.  They have also observed that once black luggage exists, it is always the case (from their perspective, not the absolute) that said luggage will ultimately be used to house bombs to kill said people because maybe that was their observation or maybe they do have some kind of unknown proof.  So, the TSA has decided that once black luggage comes up, they'll take out all plane passengers everywhere (because at some point all those organics start thinking that black is the new blue) and reset the natural luggage color to blue.  Then they'll wait until black luggage comes up again and repeat. 

   

to reiterate, you just said this:

- Everyone eventually owns black luggage... fine =/

- All black luggage stores a bomb... All? You're forcing this. This is when it becomes circular logic. A -> B -> C. "Black luggage houses a bomb" Why? "because black luggage houses a bomb..."

- The solution is to change the color of all black lugage to blue... that doesn't remove the bomb inside, does it?

- They'll repeat untill black lugage becomes a trend again.

There are multiple things wrong with this analogy. Changing the color of the luggage doesn't necessarily remove the bomb automatically. Plus the reapers aren't trying to change synthetics, they're trying to kill organics so that they don't make dangerous synthetics (bombs, in this case). And the reapers don't "take people out of planes" they flat out kill them. So, the TSA wouldn't take people out of planes, they would simply shoot anyone with a black bag. 

Let me reconstruct your analogy, using bags:
- Everyone in the airport owns a black bag. (All advanced organics create synthetics)
- TSA notices a trend that black bags host bombs (All synthetics kill all lifeforms: hasty generalization)
- Due to trend TSA assumes anyone with a black bag is a terrorist (All advanced organics lead to the death of all innocent lifeforms: hasty generalization).
- Regardless of whether or not their bag hosted a bomb, the TSA shoots everyone in the airport with a black bag (which is everyone) to prevent them from carrying a bomb to a populated area that might kill hundreds of thousands of innocents. 
- In the end, everyone in the airport who owns a black bag is dead (advanced organics are dead) so they can't carry bombs (make synthetics) that will hurt people.

Hope that helps.

taelus.calimshan wrote...   

Their logic isn't provable (so far as we know), but it isn't disprovable because they have some evidence that it is correct.  Their premise is neither true, nor false based on the information we, as Shepard, have available.  We don't know the absolute truth either.  It's possible that they're correct and that all synthetics ultimately decide that organics, who are emotional and will do things like angrily destroy groups of synthetics out of fear/hatred/etc., are no longer safe to have in existence. 

 

It is disprovable. If something can't be proven with 100% efficacy, then it is not true. "A coin always lands on heads" is only right some of the time. I may "have some evidence that is correct" but the fact that there is evidence against it makes the statement false. 

Their premise is "all synthetics will kill all lifeforms." Since zero-chances are not possible, the chance that "all synthetics will not kill all lifeforms" is also prevalent. This in addition to the evidence present at the time of the reaper attack is enough to debunk their theory. Even if "have some evidence that is correct," it is simply impossible for there not to be another side of the coin. They do not have 100% consistency in their argument. therefore, it is false. 

taelus.calimshan wrote...    

So yeah, the postulate about synthetics always rising up against organics to wipe it all out isn't disproven, it's challenged, and that's different in logic theory.  Admittedly, once you go away from binary true/false statements, you're supposed to swap into the realm of probabilities, but that's a whole other discussion.

Also, sorry OP.  I know I've helped to derail your thread at this point.

It may "unknown" (not disproven) in our real world, but in the ME world, there's more than enough evidence to support the contrary. In the ME world, a probability (or chance or whatever) cannot be assigned to occurence of synthetics killing all lifeforms, let alone all synthetics killing all lifeforms. Hasty generalizations such as "all synthetics will kill all lifeforms" automatically make the premise false. 

[humes spork]

iorveth1271 wrote...

Lotsa stuff

That assumes synthetics are by nature, omnicidal, since you assume the destruction of organic life is an intended consequence. That directly contradicts your argument synthetics are by nature non-aggressive. In which case, Javik's suspicion towards EDI and Legion, and the behavior of the quarians in not one but two wars against the geth, ultimately proves the Catalyst right.

The Catalyst's dialogue leaves a lot of latitude for interpretation. The Catalyst does not state synthetics are necessarily the aggressors. To defend oneself against a creator that wishes to destroy the created alone can be considered an act of rebellion.

It harkens back to Asimov's laws of robotics, the third of which is the tacit denial of artificial life's right to defend itself from aggression by its creators: "A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws". For the sake of clarification, the first law is that robots (synthetics) must never injure or allow human beings (organics) to come to harm through action or inaction, and the second law is that robots (synthetics) must obey orders given it by human beings (organics) except in cases when obedience would violate the first law.

It is sufficient enough to say at the very least, organic/synthetic conflict would result in the eradication of organic life through collateral damage, or as an unintended consequence. Case in point, piecing together the entire of Javik's dialogue regarding the Metacon War: the zha were the race that implanted symbiotic AI's into themselves to survive an environmental crisis. The symbiotic AI's, the zha'til, assimilated the zha (a reference to the Borg), effectively wiping out the zha's culture. The Metacon War was the war between the protheans and the zha'til, which culminated in the protheans being forced to Carter the zha'til's home system when the Reapers arrived and took over the zha'til (as they did the geth heretics).

Synthetic/organic conflict, massive collateral damage. Significantly less organic life now, less opportunity for organic life to arise later.

http://masseffect.wi...annon#Zha.27til

Keep in mind that in the case of the quarians versus the geth, unless Shepard shouts the quarians down and jumps through a lot of hoops to get in the position to do so, one of the two races is going extinct (and that would have been the quarians). Don't judge the entire scenario by the outlying peaceful resolution, judge it for the potential resolutions without Shepard's interference.

Modifié par humes spork, 26 mars 2012 - 08:16 .

[RedNanaki]

We have a lot of experiences that point to the claim of synthetics destroying organics to be false, and we should have been allowed to present that evidence to the Catalyst to make it reconsider its solution. But since we can't, this is what the Catalyst believes to be true:

Advanced organics exist => Adv. organics create synthetics => Synthetics destroy all organics

If the end goal is to prevent synthetics from destroying (again) all organics, it is in fact a solution to destroy advanced organics to prevent the last part of the chain from occurring.

Sure, there are better solutions, but "the solution" actually works for that purpose. It's also stupid. >

[hyperforce99]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

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?

If you talk to the Protean often enough he'll eventually start to talk about how the reapers fought.
He said that every battle saw a new attrocity that was designed to counter their tactics.
As the years and battles went on, the reapers got more and more adept at routing their positions.

He said that Shepard was only seeing the reaper forces in their earliest stages when adapting to a new life form and their tactics. And that we couldn't imagine what we'd be fighting if the war were to continue for more than a hundred years like in his cycle.

RedNanaki wrote...

We have a lot of experiences that point to the claim of synthetics destroying organics to be false, and we should have been allowed to present that evidence to the Catalyst to make it reconsider its solution. But since we can't, this is what the Catalyst believes to be true:

Advanced organics exist => Adv. organics create synthetics => Synthetics destroy all organics

If the end goal is to prevent synthetics from destroying (again) all organics, it is in fact a solution to destroy advanced organics to prevent the last part of the chain from occurring.

Sure, there are better solutions, but "the solution" actually works for that purpose. It's also stupid. >

 

In that sense the reapers might have as well targeted syntetics only and allow organics to survive...
Even if their reasoning is circular or not, its clearly moronic.
If the entire reapers fleet was to prevent organics from being wiped out by synthetics, then why aren't they targeting synthetic life forms ONLY. Harvesting organics to create synthetic/organic hybrids to kill more organics so they can't make synthetics makes no sense at all... !!!

In that sense we should just kill all humans except for the handfull of primitive ones using nuclear weapons because advanced civilisations can create nuclear weapons which could/would eventually lead to our own self destruction. <_<

Modifié par hyperforce99, 26 mars 2012 - 08:20 .