jumpingkaede wrote...
Established canon is also that the Geth are peaceful beyond the Perseus Veil. The only time in this cycle they actually affirmatively attack anyone is when the Reapers intervene.
Modifié par Cazlee, 26 mars 2012 - 03:08 .
Lugaidster wrote...
I think everyone is fixating on the exception rather than the rule when discussing the reaper motives. You could have 10 peaceful synthetic races and still have one that went rouge. The catalyst isn't interested in the exception to his rule, his interested in preventing synthetics from killing all organics (primitive and advances alike). All it takes, from his point of view, is one synthetic race gone rouge to wipe out organics.
CaptainZaysh wrote...
jumpingkaede wrote...
Established
canon is also that the Geth are peaceful beyond the Perseus Veil. The
only time in this cycle they actually affirmatively attack anyone is
when the Reapers intervene.
The geth are like
the guy who never beats up on his wife, except when he's taken by the
demon drink and he's totally not himself.
Modifié par jumpingkaede, 26 mars 2012 - 03:10 .
And then, when their identical twin brother takes their car to drive over to the neighbors house and beat their wife, says nothing about it.CaptainZaysh wrote...
jumpingkaede wrote...
Established canon is also that the Geth are peaceful beyond the Perseus Veil. The only time in this cycle they actually affirmatively attack anyone is when the Reapers intervene.
The geth are like the guy who never beats up on his wife, except when he's taken by the demon drink and he's totally not himself.
Lugaidster wrote...
I think everyone is fixating on the exception rather than the rule when discussing the reaper motives. You could have 10 peaceful synthetic races and still have one that went rouge. The catalyst isn't interested in the exception to his rule, his interested in preventing synthetics from killing all organics (primitive and advances alike). All it takes, from his point of view, is one synthetic race gone rouge to wipe out organics.
Second point, he doesn't see himself as killing organics, rather, he sees himself preserving organics in a different form. If reapers are actually this, then the reapers themselves are not synthetics in the strict sense of the word, and as such, they would be interested in preserving themselves for more altruistic purposes: Killing a reaper destroys the history of a past civilization.
In summary, he's twisted as ****, but it doesn't mean his logic is faulty, just his original premise: Technological singularity is unavoidable.
Well, until someone offered her some jewelry if she'd attack someone else. Then she shanked that ****.jumpingkaede wrote...
Not sure if being sarcastic or intentionally obtuse.
The Geth are like the wife who defends herself from being beaten. When the husband isn't beating her, she isn't innately violent.
Dean_the_Young wrote...
And then, when their identical twin brother takes their car to drive over to the neighbors house and beat their wife, says nothing about it.
Dean_the_Young wrote...
Well, until someone offered her some jewelry if she'd
attack someone else. Then she shanked that ****.
Modifié par jumpingkaede, 26 mars 2012 - 03:12 .
jumpingkaede wrote...
Of course. But it's faulty in this cycle which is why it's "out of the blue". There is no prior evidence in Mass Effect of a synthetic race "turning on" the creators and/or threatening organic life.
Simple, the catalyst doesn't think he's actually killing you, he believes he's preserving you in a different form of life. Without this preservation, everything about you would be lost. That's his view. Please ellaborate where's the circular reasoning there.Admiral H. Cain wrote...
Cazlee wrote...
It's quite interesting how something so black and white as logic is somehow "debatable." Logic is math. Hopefully others have more patience -- but this is proving to be futile. There are too many people that would rather argue than learn.
LOL.
I'll break it down for you using what the Catatlyst said, word for word:
C: "I control the Reapers. They are my solution."
S: "Solution to what?"
C: "Chaos. The created will always rebel against their creators. But we found a way to prevent that from happening. A way to restore order for the next cycle."
S: "By wiping out organic life."
C: "No, we harvest advanced civilizations, leaving the younger ones alone. Just as we left your people alive last time we were here."
S: "But you killed the rest..."
C: "We helped them ascend so that they could make way for new life, storing the old life in Reaper form."
S: "I think we'd rather keep our own form."
C: "No, you can't. Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics. We've created this cycle so that never happens. That's the solution."
So, what do you see here that I don't?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."
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!
[/b]Begging the Question (also called Petitio Principii, this term is sometimes used interchangeably with Circular Reasoning): If writers assume as evidence for their argument the very conclusion they are attempting to prove, they engage in the fallacy of begging the question. The most common form of this fallacy is when the first claim is initially loaded with the very conclusion one has yet to prove. For instance, suppose a particular student group states, "Useless courses like English 101 should be dropped from the college's curriculum." The members of the student group then immediately move on in the argument, illustrating that spending money on a useless course is something nobody wants. Yes, we all agree that spending money on useless courses is a bad thing. However, those students never did prove that English 101 was itself a useless course--they merely "begged the question" and moved on to the next "safe" part of the argument, skipping over the part that's the real controversy, the heart of the matter, the most important component. Begging the question is often hidden in the form of a complex question (see below).
The Geth didn't decide to attack the Humans when offered progression upgrades?jumpingkaede wrote...
Wow.
Well, I can see why you identify with the Catalyst's "logic" so much now.
And yeah, that's really clever. Except that never happened.
But don't let that stop you. Please, continue.
Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 26 mars 2012 - 03:13 .
Cazlee wrote...
@Admiral H. Cain ugh you caught that before I edited it.
Here. Reapers believe organics will exterminate not only themselves, but all other organic life in the galaxy without intervention.
To protect life in the Milky Way galaxy, reapers exterminate only advanced civilizations thus allowing organic life to evolve and continue forever.
Lugaidster wrote...
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).
CaptainZaysh wrote...
jumpingkaede wrote...
Of course. But it's faulty in this cycle which is why it's "out of the blue". There is no prior evidence in Mass Effect of a synthetic race "turning on" the creators and/or threatening organic life.
One thing you might not be considering is that the synthetics don't have to start the war in order to win it.
It's not "who shot first" that the Catalyst is worried about. It's "who shoots last".
Dean_the_Young wrote...
Hm, Mass Effect 1 must have had Batarian VI's attacking Eden Prime then.
Ah, but I forget! Those were Heretics. They are not Geth. Even if Geth admit their logic is sound.
Modifié par jumpingkaede, 26 mars 2012 - 03:15 .
Whereas in the Prothean cycle, that didn't occur.jumpingkaede wrote...
Except the Geth won the war and didn't expand, or otherwise affect the organic races of the galaxy.
Kind of hard to say with you, when you ignore others points for unrelated ones not in dispute.So... what's your next argument here?
But instigation doesn't have to be Reapers, which I also said earlier. An instigation can be any source, but the voluntary change of policy shows that the Geth's values and views are not immutable.jumpingkaede wrote...
Which was instigated by the Reapers. Which is what I said in my first post.
You may want to read all of other people's points before replying.You may want to replay Mass Effect 1 and 2 before we continue.
jumpingkaede wrote...
Except the Geth won the war and didn't expand, or otherwise affect the organic races of the galaxy.
The Geth didn't "shoot first" and if they "shot last" it didn't go beyond defending themselves. They didn't exterminate the Quarians. Hell, they weren't even going to eject the Quarians from Rannoch until they were left with no alternative.
So... what's your next argument here?
Lugaidster wrote...
Simple, the catalyst doesn't think he's actually killing you, he believes he's preserving you in a different form of life. Without this preservation, everything about you would be lost. That's his view. Please ellaborate where's the circular reasoning there.
Athro wrote...
Lugaidster wrote...
I think everyone is fixating on the exception rather than the rule when discussing the reaper motives. You could have 10 peaceful synthetic races and still have one that went rouge. The catalyst isn't interested in the exception to his rule, his interested in preventing synthetics from killing all organics (primitive and advances alike). All it takes, from his point of view, is one synthetic race gone rouge to wipe out organics.
Second point, he doesn't see himself as killing organics, rather, he sees himself preserving organics in a different form. If reapers are actually this, then the reapers themselves are not synthetics in the strict sense of the word, and as such, they would be interested in preserving themselves for more altruistic purposes: Killing a reaper destroys the history of a past civilization.
In summary, he's twisted as ****, but it doesn't mean his logic is faulty, just his original premise: Technological singularity is unavoidable.
Except that his logic is faulty because he provides no proof for "synthetics will rise up to wipe out all organics."
The only proof he provides when asked is "I'm older than you can imagine, so I'm right." Sorry, that's an appeal to authority - it has no value because it doesn't provide proof.
The only proof we have is that he tells us this is the cycle - a cycle built on a circular self-fulfilling logic.
And further to this, your argument can be flipped around against him. So just because one out of ten synthetic civilisations might try to wipe out all organics, doesn't mean they will or that it is an inevitability. After all, one in ten is an exception, not a rule. In fact, it would prove that it isn't a rule that synthetics are inevitably going to wipe out all organics.
It also fails to provide a good enough reason for why the Reapers don't just provide a warning to young civilisations. It's still highly illogical to rampage across a galaxy to stop a logical implausibility that you have no actual proof of being a problem at all.
I would expect far better reasoning from an ancient AI than that.
Synthetics will kill all organics (primitive and advanced) => © is false, thus his logical reasoning will always be true because:
Modifié par Lugaidster, 26 mars 2012 - 03:36 .
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.
Athro wrote...
Which is both negated and rendered circular when you remember that the Reapers have set up the Milky Way in such a way that any organic civilisations are shaped into particular structures by Reaper technology, thereby only being a threat because the Reapers mold them into that situation.
It's a solution that creates its own problem in order to be a solution.
That's circular logic.
Admiral H. Cain wrote...
Lugaidster wrote...
Simple, the catalyst doesn't think he's actually killing you, he believes he's preserving you in a different form of life. Without this preservation, everything about you would be lost. That's his view. Please ellaborate where's the circular reasoning there.
Yeaaaah, no...
He's killing you TO preserve you. There's quite a difference.
Modifié par wombling_wombat, 26 mars 2012 - 03:24 .
Turtlicious wrote...
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.
Retour en haut
