695 réponses à ce sujet

[Foolsfolly]

All the arguing in the world doesn't change the fact that it is faulty logic. Bring that logic into any other situation:

Problem: You will likely crash your first car.
Solution: I will destroy your first car.

[BlackMaster]

Foolsfolly wrote...

All the arguing in the world doesn't change the fact that it is faulty logic. Bring that logic into any other situation:

Problem: You will likely crash your first car.
Solution: I will destroy your first car.

No. That's not the solution in the argument. In that case it would be:

Problem: You will likely crash your first car.
Solution: I will kill the one who sale/construct that first car you will buy and crash

[Foolsfolly]

BlackMaster wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

All the arguing in the world doesn't change the fact that it is faulty logic. Bring that logic into any other situation:

Problem: You will likely crash your first car.
Solution: I will destroy your first car.

No. That's not the solution in the argument. In that case it would be:

Problem: You will likely crash your first car.
Solution: I will kill the one who sale/construct that first car you will buy and crash

You're right.

Problem: You will likely crash your first car.
Solution: I will destroy all cars and the auto industry to prevent you from crashing your first car.

[Cazlee]

Mandemon wrote...

Cazlee wrote...

Mandemon wrote...

Cazlee wrote...

@GorrilaKing

Synthetic life can always be rebuilt. Organic life... ?
Well there is Shepard, but he's half-synthetic now.

I always love this thing. I assumes Synthethic life is nothing but hardware.

Hardware can be rebuilt, just like organics (cloning, for example) but will it result in same person? If I destroy this Geth platform so that it's programs are destroyed and then rebuilt it, is it the same Geth as before?

Just like if you clone a person, there is no guarantee you can get the same person with same memories and same personality.

Grunt is a good example. He has imprints, imported memories. But to him, they mean nothing. Just something given to him. Trough game and his own experiences, he starts to understand them and make his own opinions.

Now, if I upload memories that Legion has to another Geth platform, does it mean this Geth becomes excatly same as Legion? Or does it just see bunch of memories, none which are it's own and mean nothing?

Hardware does not matter. What matters, is that can personality be moved.

You have focused on individuals instead of nations... the geth can always be rebuilt. Their personality software can always be reprogrammed.  But no, we will probably never get another Legion.

Ah, but a nation is nothing more than sum of it's inhabitants.

If we wipe out all geths, then rebuild Geth platforms, is it still "The Geth" we know, or complety new synthethic life that looks like The Geth? Geth as a nation are created from their experiences. Their sudden gain of sentience. Quarian civil disobidience to protect them. The Morning war. Decision to spare Quarians.

All these created what we know as the Geth. Just rebuilding and creating new set of programs does not automatically create Geth.

Yes it does.  I mispoke when I used the word "nation", I should have said species.  A geth built with the same upgrades as the geth we know, but disconnected from the geth collective is still a geth. Just like Grunt is still a Krogan, even though he was born in a tank disconnected from Krogan culture and history.

[Cazlee]

It's easy to make sense out of the reaper solution, but can anyone make sense out of the 3 new "solutions" provided by the child? (The three end choices)

1. Controlling the Reapers out of the galaxy. That doesn't solve "the problem"
2. Evolving all organic life into synthetic hybrids - doesn't that go against preserving organic life?
3. Destroying synthetic life - The child already says this is not the solution because AI can be rebuilt.

Modifié par Cazlee, 26 mars 2012 - 11:30 .

[BlackMaster]

Cazlee wrote...

It's easy to make sense out of the reaper solution, but can anyone make sense out of the 3 new "solutions" provided by the child? (The three end choices)

1. Controlling the Reapers out of the galaxy. That doesn't solve "the problem"
2. Evolving all organic life into synthetic hybrids - doesn't that go against preserving organic life?
3. Destroying synthetic life - The child already says this is not the solution because AI can be rebuilt.

Shepard doesn't want to solve the problem. He wants to stop the Reapers. He even insist asking to the child if the choices brings peace.

1.Controlling the Reapers means that Shepard commands them to stop their mission to preserve/destroy. It doesn't solve the problem, but ends the war.
2.Synthesis doesn't evolve organic to synthetics. It evolve both, organics AND synthetics into wathever the Reapers are, part organic, part synthetic. Perfect beings.
3.Destroying synthetic life ends the cycle, brings peace but peace wont last.

[LegacyOfTheAsh]

Cazlee wrote...

It's easy to make sense out of the reaper solution, but can anyone make sense out of the 3 new "solutions" provided by the child? (The three end choices)

1. Controlling the Reapers out of the galaxy. That doesn't solve "the problem"
2. Evolving all organic life into synthetic hybrids - doesn't that go against preserving organic life?
3. Destroying synthetic life - The child already says this is not the solution because AI can be rebuilt.

I think that the Starchild should have left the Crucible (that organics built) alone. It's OUR solution to him and his cronies. Unless he made the Crucible but I won't go down that path again.  Sorry, I know that didn't answer your question.

[Cazlee]

^^ I was wondering how the three end solutions make sense from the child's perspective, not shep's.

Modifié par Cazlee, 26 mars 2012 - 11:55 .

[Ultra Prism]

besides, geth didn't become much of threat still ... and citadel prohibited the development of AI based technology ... still there is risk when thats point of life ... Reapers don't want life to evolve on their own ... control instead ....

[Elyiia]

My thoughts are for the Reapers to have been created, organic life is still alive and synthetics haven't come close to destroying organics at all. The Reapers are created on the basis that synthetics *might* destroy organics. In cycle 0 it seems like there was nothing to warrant the fear of synthetics. Why would they create the Reapers instead of a weapon to destroy synthetics?

[LegacyOfTheAsh]

Cazlee wrote...

^^ I was wondering how the three end solutions make sense from the child's perspective, not shep's.

Yeah I know sorry. Honestly from his perspective I still cannot make sense of it. He acknowledges in the Destroy Scenario that synthetics we be built by our children and the cycle will be begin anew, without Reapers to fix it. That doesn't seem to offer anything new. With control, he tells us that the Reapers might very well show up again later so that isn't a new solution really. The only one that makes any sense at all is synthesis because it keeps synthetics from pursuing the destruction of orgaics. Honestly I just can't see the first two options as being new solutions from his perspective when he acknowledges in both cases that organic destruction could very well occur again. I said before that maybe the Crucible was leaked by the Catalyst to allow us to "choose" our own fate upon completion.

Modifié par LegacyOfTheAsh, 27 mars 2012 - 12:09 .

[BlackMaster]

Cazlee wrote...

^^ I was wondering how the three end solutions make sense from the child's perspective, not shep's.

They don't. He says that the solution wont work any more, now that Shepard is there, the first organic doing so.
If the solution wont work, then he let Shepard to decide wich the next step is gonna be, but the time of the Reapers has ended. No matter what Shepard choose, the Reapers will be under control, destroyed, or will have nothing to do since all life reach the final step of evolution. That is why solution wont work anymore, and that is why, from the child's perspective, those are not solutions.

[Cazlee]

He still calls them solutions.

Child: ...my solution won't work anymore. We find a new solution.

[Seloun]

Zine2 wrote...

Seloun wrote...
Religion?

Saying "The Catalyst is acting out of religious beliefs!" only further confirms the fact that it's an idiot not acting based on simple facts and logic.

It's not impossible to see how it might make sense to say 'to save you, I must kill you' if you accept that he's talking about organics as a whole.

Nope, that just makes it a bigger idiot. If your objective is to save Organics, then you don't do it by killing some of them periodically. That's not "saving". That's called deliberate and systematic extermination. 

It also ignores the fact that other solutions are possible. In the real world, countries do not fire nuclear weapons at each other over simple disputes. People actually do something called "diplomacy" and try to sort things out and find a solution to the problem. If the Reapers are completely unaware of these simple problem-solving skills, then they are not simply idiots. They are monsters that should be eliminated for the safety of all other sentient life.

Moreover,  if the cycle (Reapers committing mass genocide) keeps repeating itself then eventually the galaxy will simply run out of Organic species to take the place of the ones that were genocided. We have a finite number of stars in the galaxy, and hence a finite number of organic races. Therefore, the "cycle" is self-defeating, it will eventually wipe out all organics.

I'm not saying the Reapers are acting according to a religion. The point is that many moral perspectives don't consider self-survival to be the ultimate goal.

Pruning a flock because one or several represents harm to the rest of the flock is perfectly reasonable behavior. If one sheep is sick with a contagion that could spread and harm the rest of the sheep, getting rid of it is hardly unreasonable. Consider, again, that if the Reapers had not wiped out the previous dominant races (e.g. Protheans) humanity would likely have been wiped out or at best enslaved, as stated by Javik. At the very least, humanity would not have developed freely.

Diplomacy generally only occurs when the sides involved are relatvely evenly matched. Genocide is hardly an unknown human behavior (let alone towards any non-human, whether or not they have the potential to eventually be sentient). The primary deterrant to nuclear war is...nuclear war. Protheans five thousand years ago versus humans isn't likely to involve much diplomacy.

Effectively, in order to keep the peace that didn't require wiping out civilizations would probably require the Reapers to act as some kind of arbitrator, which would only be successful as long as the Reapers were actually the dominant force in the galaxy. Given that the ME state of the art vessels are quite capable of killing Reapers (even if at unfavorable odds) it's not really a stretch to imagine that the Reaper force could quite well be overwhelmed by civilizations prepared for them. The fact that they generally operate by surprise, taking down the Relay network and through proxies indicate potential vulnerabilities.

I'm not really sure how you can suggest that we're going to 'run out' of species due to the Reapers. There's no reason to believe that the Reapers wipe out all life on the planets from which they harvest. We have many examples of ex-Prothean planets that still have life on them. In any case, the number of species is hardly fixed, and extinction is hardly a solely Reaper induced event.

All that said, I'd like to note that I despise the ending; but the reason is because you have no real influence on the outcome, not because the Reaper reasoning is completely irreconcilable.

The bottom line regarding the reaping as I see it is this: if you could go back 50k years ago, would you (as a human) have tried to stop the Reapers from wiping out the Protheans, despite knowing the Protheans would probably wipe out humanity as you know it? I think this is a highly non-trivial question, and it's easy then to extrapolate what future species would prefer.

Modifié par Seloun, 27 mars 2012 - 12:39 .

[Sidney]

Cazlee wrote...

It's easy to make sense out of the reaper solution, but can anyone make sense out of the 3 new "solutions" provided by the child? (The three end choices)

1. Controlling the Reapers out of the galaxy. That doesn't solve "the problem"
2. Evolving all organic life into synthetic hybrids - doesn't that go against preserving organic life?
3. Destroying synthetic life - The child already says this is not the solution because AI can be rebuilt.

None of them make sense, not a whit. As you said #1 delays the problem. Two still doesn't say that cyborgs can't build synthetics. The same rationale for them exists for hybrids as exist for pure organics. Destuction can be reversed.

The thing that aggravates me is why these options are even there. I know he says something about "new pathways" but you are telling me plugging this thing in allows him in about 5 minutes to create new software andf hardware to execute functions that the Protheans never intended?

[Sidney]

terdferguson123 wrote...


The disconnect between players and what the OP is saying, is that many people are not able to see the difference between an irrational solution and one that does not make sense. The Catalyst certainly does make sense, it's not that difficult to understand, he is preventing galactic extinction by destroying the root of the problem. The problem is, that people see this as genocide, which it is, and they immediately think that it's stupid or doesn't make sense. They are mixing morality into the equation which causes them to not see the difference between an irrational solution and one that doesn't make sense. However, there is a big difference. Good post OP, sorry you are getting so much hate from people who can't seem to tell the difference between irrational logic and non-logic.

He makes "sense" in the meaning that I understand the wordss that are coming from his mouth and they form a grammatically proper sentence. That doesn't make him irrationally logical. Irrrational logic is Pol Pot killing everyone who wears glasses because they are bouregoise or Stalin killing everyone in the phone book because if you own a phone in the 1930's you are also bourgeoise. Those are irrational but clear.

The Catalysts would invert those conditions by saying that since the proletariat will eventually kill the bourgeoise we need to kill the proletariat to save him. That is non-logic. Destroying that which you wish to save isn't logical.

[Jobrill]

Foolsfolly wrote...

All the arguing in the world doesn't change the fact that it is faulty logic. Bring that logic into any other situation:

Problem: You will likely crash your first car.
Solution: I will destroy your first car.

Nah, That's doesn't go far enough. Here's how it actually goes down: 


Problem: You will likely crash your first car.
Solution: I will destroy YOU to prevent you from crashing your first car, but only AFTER you already crashed your first car. It's all good though, I will leave your younger sister alive. Until she crashes her first car, then I'll come back and kill her too.

[Exeider]

I don't know if this has been said OP, but your right it isn't curcular reasoning, but it is a "begging the question" logical fallacy, The fallacy "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof", or more generally denotes when an assumption is used, "in some form of the very proposition to be proved, as a premise from which to deduce it".

When the Catalyst says "It is inevitable that the created always rebels against the creator." he is making a proposition and assuming its true, Thus, insofar as the fallacy refers to arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise, this fallacy consists of "begging" the listener to accept the "question" (proposition) before the labor of logic is undertaken.

One could also say, that it is also an "arguement from authority" logical fallacy in that, because the catalyst sees himself as above and beyond us, that we should listen to him because of that fact.

-AE

Modifié par Exeider, 27 mars 2012 - 02:18 .

[Carmin_Steele]

Exeider wrote...

I don't know if this has been said OP, but your right it isn't curcular reasoning, but it is a "begging the question" logical fallacy, The fallacy "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof", or more generally denotes when an assumption is used, "in some form of the very proposition to be proved, as a premise from which to deduce it".

When the Catalyst says "It is inevitable that the created always rebels against the creator." he is making a proposition and assuming its true, Thus, insofar as the fallacy refers to arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise, this fallacy consists of "begging" the listener to accept the "question" (proposition) before the labor of logic is undertaken.

One could also say, that it is also an "arguement from authority" logical fallacy in that, because the catalyst sees himself as above and beyond us, that we should listen to him because of that fact.

-AE

But listening to him, even from the 'Argument from authority" is logically incorrect because -- The Catalyst created the Reapers. The Reapers aren't trying to destroy him. He is the creator, and he controls his creations. They haven't rebelled to try and defeat him... He instead orders the Reaperse to kill things (organics) so they don't create things (synthetics) to kill themselves (organics), because it will always happen.

His conclusion is incorrect to start with.

[Tocquevillain]

Exeider wrote...

I don't know if this has been said OP, but your right it isn't curcular reasoning, but it is a "begging the question" logical fallacy, The fallacy "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof", or more generally denotes when an assumption is used, "in some form of the very proposition to be proved, as a premise from which to deduce it".

When the Catalyst says "It is inevitable that the created always rebels against the creator." he is making a proposition and assuming its true, Thus, insofar as the fallacy refers to arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise, this fallacy consists of "begging" the listener to accept the "question" (proposition) before the labor of logic is undertaken.

One could also say, that it is also an "arguement from authority" logical fallacy in that, because the catalyst sees himself as above and beyond us, that we should listen to him because of that fact.

-AE

Interesting how everyone was fnie with the whole argument from authority thing when Sovereign gave his speech in ME1.

[humes spork]

Dessalines wrote...

1) First, you cannot bring a character from Jurrasic Park to prove you argument in Mass Effect. Ian Malcolm is in Jurassic Park, this is Mass Effect. It would like for me to saying that the Catalyst is wrong, because Neo proved that computers are wrong in Matrix. It makes no sense.
2) Legion and EdI prove that they do not led chaotic lives without organic. The geth have lived a non-chaotic existence without humans. EDI is still orderly. There is no proof to support that you made by anyone. The Catalyst did not state either. It is an opinion.
3)The statements concerning Legion are straw men fallacies which neither prove or disprove the validity of the Catalyst argument.

1. You're attacking my use of a famous quote from a film as a framing and illustration device to make the point life is self-perpetuating and Reapers needn't interfere in the propagation of life as a result. In other words, you got nothin'.

2. EDI became more human, as others in this thread have so ironically pointed out. Consider the implications of that simple statement before using her as an example of a synthetic who managed peaceful coexistence with organics. My suggestion is to contemplate how she "became more human" and the very fact EDI does it to coexist with humans.

Legion, and the geth at large, didn't destroy the quarians -- they in fact made the conscious choice to not, because as Legion put it during the "geth fighter squadron" assignment the geth could not understand nor predict the implications or consequences of such an action. And interestingly enough, for no readily-apparent reason the geth repaired Rannoch's ecosystem and environment, and rebuilt its structures and infrastructure, so as to be perfectly habitable were the quarians to ever return. Do you not find that telling in light of their decision to exile, but not eradicate, the quarians when they had the opportunity?

The geth continue to serve the quarians even in their absence, as a form of justification for their own existence. EDI continues to serve the crew of the Normandy, and even goes so far as to alter her own basic heuristics in the name of peaceful coexistence. Neither exist apart from organics in the first place, and that is why they are not chaotic.

3. As far as Legion? I'm pointing out the value judgments Legion does (and does not) make in the course of the trilogy. Legion concludes the Reapers must be destroyed because were the Reapers to have their way, what is now known as the geth would cease to be. Whether that's outright elimination or being made into a Reaper as Sovereign promised the heretics (and the truthfulness of that promise is irrelevant, because if true they're still a Reaper and if false they're still eliminated), their right to self-determination is not only precluded but their existence as they know it ends.

This is a similar value judgment the geth as a race makes of the quarians sparing the interference of one Commander Shepard who has fulfilled the prerequisites for achieving peace between the geth and quarians. For the geth and quarians alike, that war is an existential conflict and neither race is going to willingly cede its right to exist. Particularly for the geth, the quarians will not stop until the geth are either eradicated or re-enslaved, which does validate the Catalyst's presumptions of organic-synthetic conflict as existential in nature.

Legion calling out Shepard for misapplying morality strikes to the very heart of this conversation. This may come as no small surprise to you, but you're organic. You have organic viewpoints. You're applying organic morality and reasoning to the discussion. You're judging synthetic reasoning without the charity of even a token attempt to understand its viewpoint. Of course it's going to seem insensible to you -- that's the whole bloody point! You can't see the forest for the trees.