695 réponses à ce sujet

[CaptainZaysh]

wombling_wombat wrote...

Seems to me that the solution causes a major problem...If the reapers come around and kill all organics who are advanced enough to create synthetics, then the synthetics who were already created (eg, Geth) are the only advanced lifeforms left after a cull.

Wouldn't that mean synthetics created during one of the cycles are at a huge advantage after each culling?

No, the Reapers will then go on to destroy the synthetics.  (We can deduce this from the fact that the galaxy wasn't full of left over synthetics from the last cycle.)

[zenoxis]

What I got from the OP:

people are trees. Fruit trees.

[Varus Praetor]

Poor analogy OP. There's no evidence to show that killing off the advanced species prevents ANYTHING from happening. Organic life as a whole in the galaxy is not interdependent. A better analogy would be cutting down trees in Europe so that the ones in America can enjoy more sunshine. And by better I mean just as moronic as the starbrat's logic.

[Lugaidster]

jumpingkaede 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.

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.  Not with the Geth; hell, not even with the Reapers.

Then the Catalyst shows up 5 minutes before the end of the game and lays it down as immutable law. 

Hence the collective "Huh?!"

I'm not arguing that the ending is good or that the motives are great. I'm just arguing that there's no circular logic there, it is a sound conclusion for them if only because they are eternal. You can disagree on the premises, but that doesn't mean that the logical reasoning is flawed. The ending by itself has many other problems for people to start making new ones. Circular logic is not one of them. 

[webhead921]

Catalyst is incorrect. He is a genocidal maniac AI. He must be killed, or else he will use the reapers to wipe out races. That's why destroy is the best choice.

[General User]

The idea that "the created" (who I suppose could be organics or synthetics, just look at the Rachni and the Protheans) will always and/or eventually rebel against "their creators" is kinda one of those "No duh Sherlock!" ideas.

Of the many problems I have with the StarKid's philosophy the two I think are most relevant here are that 1) it assumes that conflict between organics and synthetics is somehow inherent or necessary, 2) that it holds that in any conflict between the two, synthetics must eventually and/or always be the victor.

[Seloun]

The reasoning almost makes sense. The main part that confuses me is the stress on the dichotomy between synthetics and organics. I'm not sure why that's necessary.

When the Reapers talk about 'Salvation through destruction', it makes more sense to think about it as describing the previous cycle. If the Reapers hadn't wiped out the Protheans, humanity and the other contemporary civilizations would have either become enslaved or wiped out. The Reapers are essentially the enforcers of a very unambiguous Prime Directive, in a sense. This cycle is presumably only different because the Asari were the first technological race, and due to their peculiar reproductive cycle they effectively require other races to survive.

[Lugaidster]

Varus Praetor wrote...

Poor analogy OP. There's no evidence to show that killing off the advanced species prevents ANYTHING from happening. Organic life as a whole in the galaxy is not interdependent. A better analogy would be cutting down trees in Europe so that the ones in America can enjoy more sunshine. And by better I mean just as moronic as the starbrat's logic.

Evidence has nothing to do with circular logic. You can argue that his premises are wrong because of lack of evidence but if you accept his premise then there's nothing wrong with his solution. There's a lot to accept there and I would never accept it, but the problem *is the premise* not the logic reasoning afterwards.

[Athro]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

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.

That's...not correct, Athro.  AIs are not Reaper technology.  Organics will always develop those, and those are the threat the Catalyst is acting against.

Except that all the technological advancements in the Mass Effect universe are linked to the Reaper's deliberately leaving clues and tech around the galaxy to shape all the civilisations as they see fit. Sovereign explains that they shape what technology and structure the galaxy takes.

Ergo - AIs and synthetics and the political situation of the galaxy is deliberately shaped by the Reapers.

If you're going to argue cosmic scale logic, you need to be looking at the cosmic scale of events. The Reapers provide the foundations of all technological advancement and it is implied that they also use indoctrination to guide some agents to push and prod civilisations along the shapes that they desire - this includes the development of synthetics.

[Xenogenesis]

I'm sure someone probably already posted something like this but a lot of my friends and I came to a conclusion that I don't think everyone has really thought about.

Like the OP said the purpose isn't to kill organics to prevent synthetics from killing them. The purpose of the cycle is to prevent ALL organics from being killed by synthetics. The reason the reapers kill all species that are further along the evolutionary path and leave primitive life forms --like humans when we were cave men in the Prothean cycle-- is because if they just cull the synthetics and leave the further along organics then eventually those organics will just remake synthetics well before the cycle can restart and the synthetics will destroy all organic life before the reapers can come back.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that the endings are good, just trying to get another point of view out there that helps get rid of this portion of the hate.

I do personally feel that the endings lacked a lot of clarity that we all deserved as fans. Also the videos on youtube that irrefutably show the endings as almost complete palette swaps of each other just goes to show that Bioware failed in the very ending and needs to do something more for it.

Anyways, just my two cents.

[wombling_wombat]

CaptainZaysh wrote...
No, the Reapers will then go on to destroy the synthetics.  (We can deduce this from the fact that the galaxy wasn't full of left over synthetics from the last cycle.)

While that makes sense and is what you'd assume, it's not what the game implies.

The little starchild at the end only talks about culling organics, and the Reapers themselves weren't culling any Geth, in fact after assimilating with them we are told they are enhancing the Geth.  We are even asked to make a choice in whether the newly enhanced Geths, thanks to Reaper tech, should be allowed to live.  Seems that the entire purpose of Reaper solution is contradicting itself.

[ticklefist]

It's pretty sad when there are more compelling arguments about the validity of a ****ing meme than there are compelling arguments about the quality of the Mass Effect 3 genocide/suicide machine ending.

[sydranark]

@OP,

It is still poor logic. In their actions, the reapers are assuming that synthetics will inevitably kill all organics.

First of all, if that were the case, then why wouldn't they try to kill all synthetics instead of trying to kill advanced civilizations of organics? That would rid the galaxy of synthetics and prevent synthetics from killing anything.

Second, it is impossible to know for sure, 100%, that synthetics will kill all organic life. That's like saying, "there is a chance I will die in a car crash some time in my lifetime. So, I'll prevent that from happening by shooting myself in the head today."

Your tree-pruning analogy doesn't quite fit, since advanced civilizations aren't directly killing primitive organic life around the galaxy (taking food away from other branches). If the advanced lifeforms were going out and slaughtering life on other planets, then the reapers would have a valid argument in saying "we kill you to preserve other life."

It's like this, the TSA screens people before they get on a plane to make sure they aren't terrorists, right? Lets say the TSA said, "screw it, there's a chance that all of these people are terrorists, so lets kill them all" and shot everyone in the airport. =/ Doesn't make sense does it?

Lastly, lets keep in mind that this nonsense about preserving life didn't become a thing until the catalyst spat out some BS in the last 5 minutes of ME3. Until this point, the reapers justified their actions by making it seem as if they were doing organics a favor; as if reapers are the final forms of evolution. They were going to help the advanced organics reach this stage. They never gave a crap about synthetics killing primitive lifeforms or any of that garbage.

Therefore, the catalyst's logic is a load of crap. The only reason he tried using this logic was to convince Shep to agree with the reapers. It was all a half-assed attempt to manipulate Shep during his indoctrination.

[CaptainZaysh]

wombling_wombat wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...
No, the Reapers will then go on to destroy the synthetics.  (We can deduce this from the fact that the galaxy wasn't full of left over synthetics from the last cycle.)

While that makes sense and is what you'd assume, it's not what the game implies.

Ah...it actually is, Wombat, by the way the galaxy is devoid of synthetic life at the beginning of our cycle.

The Catalyst shouldn't need to explain something so patently obvious.  Wouldn't you feel annoyed if Shepard asked such a patently stupid question?

[Athro]

Lugaidster wrote...


Circular reasoning requires you to use your conclusion inside your reasoning:

http://www.logicalfa...g-the-question/ 

"An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises"

Example:

(1) The Bible affirms that it is inerrant.
(2) Whatever the Bible says is true.
Therefore:
(3) The Bible is inerrant. 

(3) = (1), hence circular.

Let's look at this from the catalysts point of view. His premise (it's false if you want as he's not providing proof of it, but that's not up for discussion):


(a) Advanced organics will create synthetics
( Synthetics will kill all organics (primitive and advanced)
Therefore:
© We will harvest advanced organics and store them in reaper form

We then have:

(a) and ( => ©

For this to be logically at fault, the first two premises have to be true and his conclusion false as:

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

Everyone is arguing that the premise ( is false, thus his logical reasoning will always be true because:

V and F => Whatever will always be valid.

Furthermore, his conclusion isn't stated in his premises, so there's no circular reasoning there.

I think you are grossly simplifying the argument and misrepresenting the conclusion.

It could be presented as follows:

a) Advanced Civilisations will develop synthetics
 Synthetics will wipe out all organic life
therefore:
We will guide civilisations to exist in a specific pattern of behaviour and advancement then reap them at the point where they will develop synthetics that could wipe out all organic life.

Because that is how their solution works. They shape civilisations until they get advanced enough to make synthetic life, then the Reapers come along to stop the civilisations that they deliberately shaped.

The logic is circular because in order for a or b to be true, the conclusion needs to be in place to make it happen. There is nothing in the logic or information provided that proves that a or b are inevitable except in the case of the Reapers guiding the situation into unfolding in that manner.

Such as in ME1 - the Geth rise up because of Reaper intervention. The Rachni attack because of Reaper intervention. Most of the events that are presented as the reason for the Reapers to come into the galaxy are instigated by Reaper involvement.

[Lugaidster]

wombling_wombat wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...
No, the Reapers will then go on to destroy the synthetics.  (We can deduce this from the fact that the galaxy wasn't full of left over synthetics from the last cycle.)

While that makes sense and is what you'd assume, it's not what the game implies.

The little starchild at the end only talks about culling organics, and the Reapers themselves weren't culling any Geth, in fact after assimilating with them we are told they are enhancing the Geth.  We are even asked to make a choice in whether the newly enhanced Geths, thanks to Reaper tech, should be allowed to live.  Seems that the entire purpose of Reaper solution is contradicting itself.

The geth with new reaper tech were being controlled by the reapers, they didn't have free will. Furthermore, when the original heretics decided to join sovereign they did so to become reapers (a geth mega-structure) themselves. So yeah, either synthetics are assimilated into reaper form, or they are wiped out. Whatever the outcome they aren't there for the next cycle.

[CaptainZaysh]

sydranark wrote...

It is still poor logic. In their actions, the reapers are assuming that synthetics will inevitably kill all organics.

If you allow synthetics to evolve to the point where they can destroy organics, there is a non-zero chance of them doing so.  Given enough time, all non-zero possibilities will eventually occur.  Hence, the Reapers are right.

sydranark wrote...
First of all, if that were the case, then why wouldn't they try to kill all synthetics instead of trying to kill advanced civilizations of organics? That would rid the galaxy of synthetics and prevent synthetics from killing anything.

Someone suggested that earlier, but upon reflection he did realise that stopping a whole galaxy full of people from making a certain tech advancement is impossible in the long run once you let the organics get to a certain tech level.  The Reaper plan is to stop organics reaching that tech level.

sydranark wrote...
Second, it is impossible to know for sure, 100%, that synthetics will kill all organic life. That's like saying, "there is a chance I will die in a car crash some time in my lifetime. So, I'll prevent that from happening by shooting myself in the head today."

It's not like that at all.

[Varus Praetor]

Lugaidster wrote...
Evidence has nothing to do with circular logic. You can argue that his premises are wrong because of lack of evidence but if you accept his premise then there's nothing wrong with his solution. There's a lot to accept there and I would never accept it, but the problem *is the premise* not the logic reasoning afterwards.

It may not quite be circular logic, but it's pretty damn close.  I'm worried about my house burning down when I sleep.  I could install smoke detectors, but a better solutions is surely to get my family outside and light it on fire myself.   Look at me, I've solved my problem!

[CaptainZaysh]

Athro wrote...

Except that all the technological advancements in the Mass Effect universe are linked to the Reaper's deliberately leaving clues and tech around the galaxy to shape all the civilisations as they see fit. Sovereign explains that they shape what technology and structure the galaxy takes.

No, that's false.  Just as we didn't invent the wheel because of Reaper intervention, there's no evidence to suggest that we only invented AIs because of Reaper intervention.  This argument is based on a false premise.

[Varus Praetor]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

sydranark wrote...

It is still poor logic. In their actions, the reapers are assuming that synthetics will inevitably kill all organics.

If you allow synthetics to evolve to the point where they can destroy organics, there is a non-zero chance of them doing so.  Given enough time, all non-zero possibilities will eventually occur.  Hence, the Reapers are right.

sydranark wrote...
First of all, if that were the case, then why wouldn't they try to kill all synthetics instead of trying to kill advanced civilizations of organics? That would rid the galaxy of synthetics and prevent synthetics from killing anything.

Someone suggested that earlier, but upon reflection he did realise that stopping a whole galaxy full of people from making a certain tech advancement is impossible in the long run once you let the organics get to a certain tech level.  The Reaper plan is to stop organics reaching that tech level.

sydranark wrote...
Second, it is impossible to know for sure, 100%, that synthetics will kill all organic life. That's like saying, "there is a chance I will die in a car crash some time in my lifetime. So, I'll prevent that from happening by shooting myself in the head today."

It's not like that at all.

But given enough time an organic species will conquer and exterminate the rest of the galaxy's organics and then commit mass suicide.  It has to be, since it has a non-zero probability!

More fail logic.

[Tritium315]

No, it makes use of awful logic.

[xsdob]

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.

So your solution is to dealy the problem and coddle the organics? The reapers wipe out the synthetics, but most of the time the synthetics are killing organics because the organics did something to try and instigate that reaction. So if you kill the synthetic, your allowing those same organics to keep making the same mistake over and over again because they don't see the harm since the great space gods will take care of it.

Besides, the catalyst also mentions, a lot more so, that they are helping to make way for new civilizations to take over, essentially they are prunning because if the synthetics don't kill off organics, than the stagnation that a civilization lasting as long as 50,000 years without change will. Mordin talks about this when discussing the collectors, how adversity is needed for organics life to change and prosper. But most of the goverments who find and take the citidel for themselves don't change, they impose their ways onto others, whether those are good like the council, or bad like the prothean empire.

So they basically make sure that all organic life can live and that no one civilization becomes so powerful that all others are stifled and essentially stagnate to death.

Modifié par xsdob, 26 mars 2012 - 03:50 .

[CaptainZaysh]

Varus Praetor wrote...

But given enough time an organic species will conquer and exterminate the rest of the galaxy's organics and then commit mass suicide.  It has to be, since it has a non-zero probability!

More fail logic.

Firstly the odds of them doing that are in fact pretty close to zero.

Secondly, new forms of organics would evolve to replace them.

Thirdly, it's not the problem the Reapers are here to solve anyway.  (Although incidentally they would, as a byproduct of their normal routine.)

I give the "fail" hat back to you.

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 26 mars 2012 - 03:53 .

[scrapmetals]

Might not be circular, but that image still makes me laugh and I still love the joke.

Then again, that image + any meme makes me laugh.

[chkchkchk]

Lugaidster wrote...

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.

Yes, but the Reapers PROVIDE THE TECHNOLOGY THAT ENCOURAGES DEVELOPMENT OF SYNTHETICS.  Mass relays!  The Citadel!  All that tech!

If you believe everyone becomes a serial killer at 21, but you want to prevent it... why would you then provide everyone with age-acceleration and enroll them in murder schools?

The Reapers aren't simply letting people screw around for 50,000 years.  The Reapers are actively guiding civilization to the point where the creation of synthetics is most likely.  There are countless ways to prevent organics from developing synthetics when you are a race of godlike super monsters that are more advanced that any other civilization that has ever existed.

Modifié par chkchkchk, 26 mars 2012 - 03:59 .