695 réponses à ce sujet

[Lugaidster]

Creid-X wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...
a) What are the better methods?

Maybe, just maybe, educating emerging civilizations on the dangers of synthetic life and a technological singularity insted of sistematically wiping them out in a horrible fashion? It might not be easy but creating a never ending circle of evolutive stagnation effectively leads to nowhere as far as we know.

If the Catalyst assigns (or was programmed to assign) no value to a specific society's continued evolution, it makes perfect sense.

Isn't the Catalys an immensely powerful A.I.? If EDI can alter it's core programming I'm pretty sure the Catalyst can too. If he's conducting such genocide without even making value judgments it's all the most incoherent.

Who's to say that after millions of years trying to argue he simply arrived at the conclusion that organics are simply too unpredictable? He doesn't mention this, but he never says that this was his only solution to the problem. And to be honest, I don't think education works as intended in this context. We are unpredictable. You can be educated to give value to life and still become a mass murderer.

As I said, his motives might be wrong, but there's nothing illogical about them. If anything, the catalyst reminds me of famous serial killers, who were cold and calculating. A false premise can give a false or true conclusion and still be valid logic reasoning.

V => V = V
F => V = V
V => F = F
F => F = V

Modifié par Lugaidster, 26 mars 2012 - 02:34 .

[Laughing.Man.d8D]

I'm sure it's just that the Reapers fear other synthetic/inorganic races. The source for other synthetic/inorganic races is organics. So, in order to ensure their own survival, at all costs, they destroy organics capable of creating synthetics to save themselves from being destroyed by an unknown enemy that they have no defense against. Say if some organic made a synthetic like Stargate SG-1's Replicators, I think the Reapers would be royally screwed in that case. Though the Reapers didn't destroy the geth out right, they were still primative AI's, so not a threat just useful tools to fight organics.

[chkchkchk]

Lugaidster wrote...

chkchkchk wrote...

Sovereign tells us that the Reapers guide the development of galactic civilization along paths the Reapers desire. If the Reapers want to stop synthetics from killing organics, why do the Reapers create a situation where organics create synthetics? Why don't the Reapers guide the development of civilizations in such a way that organics avoid creating synthetics.

IT IS ALMOST AS IF A NEW WRITER REJECTED THE EXISTING LORE OF THE SERIES. IT IS ALMOST AS IF MARAUDER SHIELDS WAS TRYING TO TELL ME SOMETHING.

They guide the evolution of the species in a certain pattern, but they can't eliminate free will. As every organic species will regard time as valuable, they will create tools that make them have more time with themselves, in the end, the ultimate tool will be constructed: a sentient synthetic life form. They can't eliminate that posibility, they can just cull those when it happens.

In other words, Sovereign was saying: "We guide you along the paths we desire, which are actually the paths we don't desire."

Yeah, okay.  They couldn't come up with a better plan?  If they wanted to preserve organics maybe the could have, I don't know, not given organics the technology to become advanced to the point that they create synthetics.  They could have, I don't know, maybe created technology that kept everyone primitive and isolated?

Sovereign's stuff about guiding sapient development makes sense in the original Lovecraftian sense, where the Reapers were using the galaxy as a farm.  Every 50,000 years they show up and feed and reproduce.  Even Drew's "dark energy" concept fit in with that.

[Kreid]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

I'm not sure that "it might not be easy" adequately describes the difficulty of preventing a certain field of technological advancement across a whole galaxy.  Have you considered that this method might have zero possibility of success in the long run?

I agree with you, it would be a monumental task to say at least, but, my point still stands.
It's pretty stupid to perpetuate a never ending cycle of evolutionary stagnament to "save" organic life when you're going to be limiting them each time, lettting them reach a point they're never going to be able to surpass, with "keeping" them in Reaper form as a phyrric consolation prize.

You'd think the catalyst would search for methods of trying to educate these races ton the dangers of A.I and keep the Reapers as a safeguard.

Perhaps it can't - the Catalyst is not EDI, and so far as we know nobody has ever unshackled it.  It could be following (a warped interpretation of) its original programming to prevent the rise of civilisation-killer AIs.

Fair enough, i won't try to disprove this point because, frankly, there's not enough info to go on but I'll say i find it extremely unlikely that the catalyst is shacled or fixed in some kind of programming.

[Athro]

I just need to reiterate - the logic is circular. It presents a premise that is a solution to a problem that the solution created.

Let me spell it out this way.

Premise - Synthetics will rise up to destroy all organic life.
Solution - Build a network of artifacts that can guide organic civilisations to develop to the point that they create synthetic life that will destroy all organic life.
Reap the civilisations and reset all the technology before all organic life is wiped out by the synthetic life forms we have made via our proxy advanced civilisations that developed in the manner in which we chose.

Um...

That's circular. Create new civilisations -> Civilisations make synthetic life -> Reap Civilisations -> Create new civilisations. All the rest is smoke and mirrors to distract you from the fact that the Reapers created a solution to problem they make.

Not to mention all the other fallacies. The facts are - a) It's built on circular logic and There are so many internal flaws as well a technical ones that the endings are failure on virtually every level.

[Lugaidster]

Militarized wrote...

Even if his logic isn't entirely circular, which I believe it is, tech singularity is dumb and total weaksauce.

Wikibomb here :

http://en.wikipedia....cular_reasoning 

You can have a false premise and arrive at either a false conclusion  or a true conclusion and it still is valid logical reasoning:

F => F = T
F => T = T
T => T = T

What I mean by this is that even if he's basing his motives on technological singularity and it's false, his logic reasoning afterwards isn't flawed. Just his perception that the original premise is true. 

Modifié par Lugaidster, 26 mars 2012 - 02:38 .

[Cazlee]

Admiral H. Cain wrote...

Cazlee wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Cazlee wrote...

Maybe not in this galaxy.  You don't know what the catalyst knows, it has billions of years of experience on us.

All I know is that all the evidence in the game contradicts him.
Look at Rannoch. No, don't even bother with the Quarians. The Geth had total supremacy over Rannoch for 3 centuries and... there are still birds in the sky.

The Geth literally wouldn't harm a fly.

It has only been 50,000 years. Perhaps the reapers are guarding against something they believe is inevitable, and they might even have a damn good reason.

I just want to reiterate that the logic is not circular.  It may not be correct or right, but it isn't circular. We can disagree about the truth of the logic while still both accepting that the logic itself is fine.

Yes, it is. 

Once again:

Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.  

The Catalyst's argument is as follows: 

He created the Reapers (advanced synthetics) to destroy and thereby prevent advanced organics from creating advanced synthetics which would then in turn destroy organics. 

So, he created a hyper advanced race of synthetics to kill organics. 

Why?

So that advanced organics would not create advanced synthetics which would then kill organics. 

He actually DID what he was trying to prevent, sort of, maybe.

Where is the conclusion?

Grab a definition that explains why circular reasoning is fallicious.  The definition you quote is a little half-assed.
By the way I bolded an imporant part of your post...that shows you agree that the logic is not circular.

Modifié par Cazlee, 26 mars 2012 - 02:40 .

[Elishiaila]

Admiral H. Cain wrote...

Let's review what exactly circular reasoning is: 

Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.  

The Catalyst claims that he created these advanced synthetics to kill advanced organics because advanced organics will (probably) create advanced synthetics which will then wipe out all organics. He argues that this will happen because it has happened before and will happen again. 

Find me the conclusion.

It is YOUR reasoning, not HIS. That is the issue.

His reasoning is...

Unline synthetics, which are static (represent order), organics evolve, adapt, and try to spread. They compete for resources. Most organic races are sustainable because nature balances itself. But with our tool use, with our ability to create advanced machines, self replicating machines we are able to create civilizations that aren't sustainable and in theory they can use up all resources and kill all life permanently.

So Reapers try to target civilizations who already advanced beyound this point, and their evolution and their drive to fluorish led to civilizations that aren't sustainable. The key is: The moment you cannot sustain yourself and you use tools (synthetics) to reach other planets, create colonies, etc. and use up more and more resources in a non-sustainable way, you become a threat. And Reapers only stop civilizations who are already on this path. Who aren't sustainable, and who are started to take resources of countless other worlds (stoping normal evolution there) by extensive space travel and colonization.

So "homosexuality" isn't the only present day problem they want to portray in the game. And what we see is a green view of things. Sadly that eco-friendly approach isn't supported by physics.

[CaptainZaysh]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

The point is any sentient being, at its basest level, seeks to continue its own kind. If Reapers live forever, then what's the point of "reproducing"? It's not like they do much other than wipe out synthetic life.

I think they reproduce (a) to replace casualties/grow fighting strength - i.e. preserve the Cycle - and ( to preserve the individual societies they are wiping out.

( is what makes it really interesting to me.  My guess is that the ability to do ( was achieved by the society that created the Catalyst after it created the Catalyst.  The Catalyst was probably prevented from wiping out its creator society by its programming, but if they weren't wiped out but ascended...

To me it's an example of how AIs can wipe out their parent race by behaving in ways not intended by their creators.  On the Wikipedia page on technological singularities, it mentions possibilities like an AI that "mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person who asked the question."

Unit-Alpha wrote...
I concede the second point to a degree. However, it is obvious that synthetics have developed at an accelerated rate due to inter-species cooperation, which is prompted by the... relay network.

Science as a whole advances quickly, sure.  But the quarians (and the alliance) were doing their AI research in secret.

Ultimately I think the relay network isn't there to trick us into sharing research data.  It's to make us easier to track down when it's time to flip the kill switch.

Unit-Alpha wrote...
Except it doesn't wipe out synthetics instead. If they are the real problem, why not go after them? Because they are preserving their own kind. You're still synthetics killing organics to protect organics from other synthetics. How does that make sense?

You're oversimplifying.  How does a human killing a human to stop him from killing a human make sense?

[Admiral H. Cain]

Cazlee wrote...

Admiral H. Cain wrote...

Yes, it is. 

Once again:

Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.  

The Catalyst's argument is as follows: 

He created the Reapers (advanced synthetics) to destroy and thereby prevent advanced organics from creating advanced synthetics which would then in turn destroy organics. 

So, he created a hyper advanced race of synthetics to kill organics. 

Why?

So that advanced organics would not create advanced synthetics which would then kill organics. 

He actually DID what he was trying to prevent, sort of, maybe.

Where is the conclusion?

Grab a definition that explains why circular reasoning is fallicious.  The definition you quote is a little half-assed.
By the way I bolded an imporant part of your post...that shows you agree that the logic is not circular.

I wrote that as sarcasm, but you can interpret it any way you want...

Circular Reasoning is closely related to begging the question. Often the writers using this fallacy word take one idea and phrase it in two statements. The assertions differ sufficiently to obscure the fact that that the same proposition occurs as both a premise and a conclusion. The speaker or author then tries to "prove" his or her assertion by merely repeating it in different words. Richard Whately wrote in Elements of Logic (London 1826): “To allow every man unbounded freedom of speech must always be on the whole, advantageous to the state; for it is highly conducive to the interest of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments.” Obviously the premise is not logically irrelevant to the conclusion, for if the premise is true the conclusion must also be true. It is, however, logically irrelevant in proving the conclusion. In the example, the author is repeating the same point in different words, and then attempting to "prove" the first assertion with the second one. A more complex but equally fallacious type of circular reasoning is to create a circular chain of reasoning like this one: "God exists." "How do you know that God exists?" "The Bible says so." "Why should I believe the Bible?" "Because it's the inspired word of God." If we draw this out as a chart, it looks like this:The so-called "final proof" relies on unproven evidence set forth initially as the subject of debate. Basically, the argument goes in an endless circle, with each step of the argument relying on a previous one, which in turn relies on the first argument yet to be proven. Surely God deserves a more intelligible argument than the circular reasoning proposed in this example!

http://web.cn.edu/kw...acies_list.html

Modifié par Admiral H. Cain, 26 mars 2012 - 02:42 .

[Wolven_Soul]

Lugaidster wrote...

Let me start by saying that I'm not here to defend the ending, I believe that it could have been handled way better, but I've seen way too many times people disregarding the Reapers purpouse because it's circular logic. Commonly going to this meme:



However, I believe that the conclusion everyone's making is false. The reason for that is that the catalyst isn't killing organic life to stop synthetics killing organic life. That's an oversimplification. It's killing some organic life to prevent synthetics to kill all organic life. That premise might be wrong, but it's not a logical fallacy as there's no contradiction.

The best analogy I can come up with is prunning trees. When the trees are growing, sometimes the best way to ensure proper growing is by pruning it (ie, killing some branches) instead of leaving the tree to die because some branches take all the food killing all the otherones. (This does happen in some fruit trees and you have to prune it to ensure that all fruits are good).

Again, I'm not defending the ending nor am I defending the motive of the reapers, but it's completely a different thing to call it stupid logic when it's not. It's arguable, but certainly not stupid.

Just because the logic might make sense in some warped sense, does not mean it is not stupid.

[Tov01]

The catalyst rather reminds me of the paperclip maximizer (http://wiki.lesswron...rclip_maximizer) in that it is unable to recognize that what it is doing is stupid. Or at least, stupid from our perspective.

Also, seeing that this is the logic of the Reapers, I don't think that we are supposed to agree with it.

Modifié par Tov01, 26 mars 2012 - 02:41 .

[Jayce]

Tocquevillain wrote...

Cosmar wrote...

If the Starchild were to offer up proof that he was right, maybe I'd be somewhat more ok with that. But as it is he just says it bluntly, when, so far, in this cycle, nothing has happened to prove him right.

The geth NEVER wanted to go to war with anyone *until* Sovereign started messing with them.

Without proof that his unfair blanket statement is correct, I just couldn't swallow it.

You know how Sovereign says you'll never understand the Reapers? That's cause your puny brain (Shepard's) can't get over the fact they have millions of years of observation under their belts and that this is best way forward as they see it, until you brought the catalyst online.

Just because he didn't tell you all the history of the millions of years that have already gone by as proof, doesn't mean it didn't exist in some way. 

Except this is still circular logic. If organic life still exists at the point the Reapers begin their cycle then it doesn't matter how many cycles have witnessed, they still haven't witnessed a technological singularity. It hasn't happened because to them they've stopped it. but the notion is still a zero probability equation and the zero probability equation can be reversed. What happens if they wipe out a civilation that could prevent a TS only to make way for a new civilization that can't?

What starboy doesn't seem to have grasped is that the Reapers ARE the technological singularity.

[doodiebody]

Lugaidster wrote...

doodiebody wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

However, I believe that the conclusion everyone's making is false. The reason for that is that the catalyst isn't killing organic life to stop synthetics killing organic life. That's an oversimplification. It's killing some organic life to prevent synthetics to kill all organic life. That premise might be wrong, but it's not a logical fallacy as there's no contradiction.

I made a post about this the other day.  I agree with you here.

The thing I was pointing out in my thread is that while his logic isn't exactly circular, it's based on a premise that must be false.  If synthetics ever completely wiped out organic life, to the point where it couldn't return, the organics in the game wouldn't exists.  So we can only conclude that no synthetics have ever succeeded in fully wiping out organics.  Which means his solution (leaving behind only simple organics) is indistinguishable from whatever synthetic horrors he claims to be protecting us from.

Do remember that they actually remove synthetics from the galaxy. The geth heretics actually joined Sovereign in the first place because they wanted to become a reaper to achieve their goal at building the geth megastructure. This geth megastructure could be considered as a reaper by itself also, so it's not entirely unaccurate that the premise could be true at some point. You only need one synthetic life form that goes rougue to actually prove his point.

I'm not saying that he's correct in his motivations, but his logic isn't flawed.

Well, my point isn't that his views couldn't eventually turn out to be true.  He presents his case as if it's an inevitability that he's seen before, which is obviously not true.  So he has no evidence at all to base his claims on.

[CaptainZaysh]

Creid-X wrote...

I agree with you, it would be a monumental task to say at least, but, my point still stands.
It's pretty stupid to perpetuate a never ending cycle of evolutionary stagnament to "save" organic life when you're going to be limiting them each time, lettting them reach a point they're never going to be able to surpass, with "keeping" them in Reaper form as a phyrric consolation prize.

Yeah it's stupid and monstrous if you look at it from our perspective.  But from a machine's point of view?  It hasn't got a soul: it can't figure out that what it's doing is monstrous.  My suspicion is that its creator race were the first ones it ascended, and that its mission got a lot easier after that.

Creid-X wrote...

Fair enough, i won't try to disprove this point because, frankly, there's not enough info to go on but I'll say i find it extremely unlikely that the catalyst is shacled or fixed in some kind of programming.

I think it's extremely likely.  It would explain a lot, actually:
- why the Reapers are all tightly controlled
- why the Reapers don't seem to advance
- why the Reapers aren't interested in anything except preserving the cycle

[omntt]

Sorry but that's circular logic at its finest - he could kill the geth, the beings who created syntethics or are going to, or just some of them, instead of obliterating every race who knows how to travel across the galaxy. That's like burning the tree, not helping it.
I still don't know if that's just flawed or hypocrital.

[Unit-Alpha]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

The point is any sentient being, at its basest level, seeks to continue its own kind. If Reapers live forever, then what's the point of "reproducing"? It's not like they do much other than wipe out synthetic life.

I think they reproduce (a) to replace casualties/grow fighting strength - i.e. preserve the Cycle - and ( to preserve the individual societies they are wiping out.

( is what makes it really interesting to me.  My guess is that the ability to do ( was achieved by the society that created the Catalyst after it created the Catalyst.  The Catalyst was probably prevented from wiping out its creator society by its programming, but if they weren't wiped out but ascended...

To me it's an example of how AIs can wipe out their parent race by behaving in ways not intended by their creators.  On the Wikipedia page on technological singularities, it mentions possibilities like an AI that "mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person who asked the question."

Unit-Alpha wrote...
I concede the second point to a degree. However, it is obvious that synthetics have developed at an accelerated rate due to inter-species cooperation, which is prompted by the... relay network.

Science as a whole advances quickly, sure.  But the quarians (and the alliance) were doing their AI research in secret.

Ultimately I think the relay network isn't there to trick us into sharing research data.  It's to make us easier to track down when it's time to flip the kill switch.

Unit-Alpha wrote...
Except it doesn't wipe out synthetics instead. If they are the real problem, why not go after them? Because they are preserving their own kind. You're still synthetics killing organics to protect organics from other synthetics. How does that make sense?

You're oversimplifying.  How does a human killing a human to stop him from killing a human make sense?

But if that's the case, then they are losing numbers to regain numbers, which makes very little evolutionary sense, if you were immortal. No logical race would take the risk of something like the Crucible existing to destroy them. If you were a race allergic to, say, water, but were immortal, would you risk taking your entire race into an area that might rain to reproduce? No.

The lack of a mass relay system would minimize destruction from synthetics to a single system. If need be, they could step in to stop other races if this trend became apparent.

I'm not sure how that last point makes sense. This is not a singluar, assured occurance.

Modifié par Unit-Alpha, 26 mars 2012 - 02:46 .

[Gyroscopic_Trout]

Lugaidster wrote...
Again, I'm not defending the ending nor am I defending the motive of the reapers, but it's completely a different thing to call it stupid logic when it's not. It's arguable, but certainly not stupid.

There.  That bit there, that's the problem.  I agree that the Catalyst's logic is not circular.  Heck, I like it.  It fits the evidence.  And has a kind of original Star Trek 'stupid computer' feel.

It kind of reminds me of Legion's explanation in ME2 of why making peaceful overtures to the Geth would be difficult.  He said that historically, the Quarians would attack 100% of the time if they perceived that they had the advantage.  This made it impossible for Geth to let their guard down around Quarians, because the math said so.

Like the Geth's logic, the Catalyst presents its beliefs as absolute, unable to see the flaws because its own nature prevents it.  But for the first time in his life, Commander Shepard has nothing to say.  The solution therefore isn't to get rid of the Catalyst, but to let Commander Shepard talk.

[CaptainZaysh]

doodiebody wrote...

Well, my point isn't that his views couldn't eventually turn out to be true.  He presents his case as if it's an inevitability that he's seen before, which is obviously not true.  So he has no evidence at all to base his claims on.

It is actually inevitable, though.  If you let synthetics evolve the capability to wipe the galaxy clean of organics, there is a non-zero possibility of them doing so.  Given enough time, all non-zero possibilities eventually will occur.

[Lugaidster]

chkchkchk wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

chkchkchk wrote...

Sovereign tells us that the Reapers guide the development of galactic civilization along paths the Reapers desire. If the Reapers want to stop synthetics from killing organics, why do the Reapers create a situation where organics create synthetics? Why don't the Reapers guide the development of civilizations in such a way that organics avoid creating synthetics.

IT IS ALMOST AS IF A NEW WRITER REJECTED THE EXISTING LORE OF THE SERIES. IT IS ALMOST AS IF MARAUDER SHIELDS WAS TRYING TO TELL ME SOMETHING.

They guide the evolution of the species in a certain pattern, but they can't eliminate free will. As every organic species will regard time as valuable, they will create tools that make them have more time with themselves, in the end, the ultimate tool will be constructed: a sentient synthetic life form. They can't eliminate that posibility, they can just cull those when it happens.

In other words, Sovereign was saying: "We guide you along the paths we desire, which are actually the paths we don't desire."

Yeah, okay.  They couldn't come up with a better plan?  If they wanted to preserve organics maybe the could have, I don't know, not given organics the technology to become advanced to the point that they create synthetics.  They could have, I don't know, maybe created technology that kept everyone primitive and isolated?

Sovereign's stuff about guiding sapient development makes sense in the original Lovecraftian sense, where the Reapers were using the galaxy as a farm.  Every 50,000 years they show up and feed and reproduce.  Even Drew's "dark energy" concept fit in with that.

If you do that you aren't allowing free will. Look at it this way. Let's say I believe that everyone that turns 21 years old will become a serial killer, and I want to prevent that from happening. What would be the less invasive way to prevent that from happening? Controlling or censoring everyone to prevent them from killing others or simply letting you live until you're 20 and then killing you?

Neither answer is the best, if you accept the premise to be true (which the reapers are accepting). In that case, no answer is better than the other one, so they chose one, it may not be what you'd choose, but your alternative isn't better.

And, to be honest, if the reapers did exist, I'd rather live in the universe where they kill us after a certain point rather than living in a permanently controlled fashion.

[Cazlee]

It's quite interesting how something so black and white as logic is somehow "debatable." Logic is math. Either right or wrong.

Modifié par Cazlee, 26 mars 2012 - 02:52 .

[Lugaidster]

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...
Again, I'm not defending the ending nor am I defending the motive of the reapers, but it's completely a different thing to call it stupid logic when it's not. It's arguable, but certainly not stupid.

There.  That bit there, that's the problem.  I agree that the Catalyst's logic is not circular.  Heck, I like it.  It fits the evidence.  And has a kind of original Star Trek 'stupid computer' feel.

It kind of reminds me of Legion's explanation in ME2 of why making peaceful overtures to the Geth would be difficult.  He said that historically, the Quarians would attack 100% of the time if they perceived that they had the advantage.  This made it impossible for Geth to let their guard down around Quarians, because the math said so.

Like the Geth's logic, the Catalyst presents its beliefs as absolute, unable to see the flaws because its own nature prevents it.  But for the first time in his life, Commander Shepard has nothing to say.  The solution therefore isn't to get rid of the Catalyst, but to let Commander Shepard talk.

As I said, I'm not speaking about the ending itself, just the reaper's motives. I hate the out of character Shepard too.

Modifié par Lugaidster, 26 mars 2012 - 02:48 .

[Epic777]

Cazlee wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

It *is* circular logic, that the Reapers don't exterminate all organic life themselves is irrelevant, especially since *no synthetic ever has*.

Maybe not in this galaxy.  You don't know what the catalyst knows, it has billions of years of experience on us.

The logic in itself is not circular. It may not be correct, or right, but it is not circular.

How are the players supposed to know? The StarChild states everything but explains nothing. Did it observe synthetic genocide of organics in many cycles? Why use the geth at all then?

[Cody211282]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

doodiebody wrote...

Well, my point isn't that his views couldn't eventually turn out to be true.  He presents his case as if it's an inevitability that he's seen before, which is obviously not true.  So he has no evidence at all to base his claims on.

It is actually inevitable, though.  If you let synthetics evolve the capability to wipe the galaxy clean of organics, there is a non-zero possibility of them doing so.  Given enough time, all non-zero possibilities eventually will occur.

How do you know that, would you like to provide proof?

Oh ya thats right you don't have awensers.

[bryan12112]

Draconis6666 wrote...

The problem is that its a rediculous solution anyway, if the purpose is to preserve organic life you should cull all synthetic life not the other way around, so your right its not circular logic, its not even logic its just blatant stupidity.

I'm sure this has been discussed already, but...

The way I see it, just destroying synthetics wouldn't make sense from the Reapers point of view. Their goal appears to be two-fold. Not only to prevent organics from being wiped out, but to also harvest all organic life and help it ascend. That is important to them. If they just went around destroying synthetics every 50,000 years, what would they gain from all of this? Nothing.

Modifié par bryan12112, 26 mars 2012 - 02:56 .