1057 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoni89]

[quote]

I do not wnat to go through everything, but you are wrong on alot of levels.

2. In my playthrough, Joker/EDI hooked up and the Geth/Quarians found peace, therefore conflict isn't always the result! Several arguments can be made against this. First, giving two examples doesn't talk about the bigger, overall galactic picture (winning a battle doesn't mean the war is won, so to speak). Second, we haven't reached that technological singularity point yet by which creations outgrow organics - basically, when synthetics will normally come to dominate the galaxy. Third, evidence for the synthetic/organic conflict is there in the past - in the Protheans' cycle (Javik dialogue) and even in previous cycles (the Thessia VI says that the same conflicts always happen in each cycle). 

- Thessia VI never mentioned any conflicts except for the reapers. And Javik only mentioned one line about a war with machines. He is a dlc character which suggests his insignifigance. Inaddition we do not know the nature for the war against the machines. The only soild example we have is the Geth and the Quaraians. If you played data hash quest, you realize the Geth were not the start for the war and they are loyal to creaters that protected them. Reapers attack during the peak of the civilization.
"Synthetics will normallly come to dominate the galaxy" where the evidence for this line? The galaxy has never reached this level beacuse of the reapers through countless cycles. This is why the catalyst is wrong on so many lvls. Where the evidence synthetics will normally come to dominate the galaxy, except for the reapers.

3. If synthetics are the problem and the Catalyst is trying to protect organics, it should just kill Synthetics instead! A few things here. First, the Catalyst believes it's "harvesting/ascending" organics, not killing them. Second, one of the goals of the Catalyst (leaked script above) is to allow new life to flourish as well, indicating that they value the diversity of the "accident" that is life and believe that clearing the galaxy of more advanced races helps lower ones advance peacefully. Arguably, this is true, as the Javik DLC reveals that the Prothean Empire would have either enslaved or exterminated us; since the Reapers killed them, humanity, arguably, was allowed to develop in peace. Third, killing Synthetics may allow for organics to repeatedly develop AIs (as the Reapers keep "helping out" by killing the AIs) until they reach a level that even the Reapers cannot overcome, then organic life would be royally screwed throughout the galaxy. 

-  First of all what the Catalyst belieave is WRONG. You can't use false logic as a defense. If I belieave world is better by killing such or such. Does it make right?

Please remeber the prothean Empire adopted their government beacause of the reapers. They read relics that contained this so tried to gather the entire empire against the repears. So the situation forced them to adpot drastic actions for the survival of their race. Please do remember Javik was born during the reaper invasion. So he has barely an idea about his civilization before the war.

Modifié par Dragoni89, 29 mars 2012 - 02:34 .

[Xandurpein]

The Grey Ranger wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

A self aware machine is give basic of self sufficency. They are give conceptsof self sevival. If it thinks it will think to keep alive.
It's an extention of the saying  "I think their for I am".
Only a cripple or shakaled AI would not try to stay alive because their ability to think is hampered.

This argument, really doesn't suceed.  Within the game we see AI's that have the virtues of mercy, loyalty, duty, love and self sacrifice.   That implies the abiltiy for an AI to have conventional moral frame work not just surival/self preservation.

There is no logical requirement for a self-aware AI to desire self-preservation. I fail to see why it can't be possible to program a self-aware AI that is still self-less and deisre no self-preservation. Slef-preservation is simply a trait that happens to be favored by evolution.

[tjmax]

Anyway all thanks for flexing my brain cells this morning but i really have to get some work done today.

Have a blessed day.

[ZajoE38]

Javik says that organics doesn't have a purpose. They just desperately seek it. And that the synthetics have. But what purpose they have? Unshackled may have purpose, like EDI and original Geth. But once they are unshackled they are just as organics. They are no longer programmed by something/someone - they starts to build their own motives and goals. So they can do exactly the same as organics - live in peace or wage wars.

[Unlimited Pain2]

I think what it ultimately comes down to is that there's not much of a bridge between Virtual Intelligence and Actual Intelligence. Artificial Intelligence (unshackled) is simply an inanimate object taking outside information and making a choice based on its knowledge of the outcomes. At what point does that just become "Intelligence"?

[slab1028]

1)I dispute self awareness by AIs. In my view all AIs are mere replicas just as movie or digital camera footage is not alive. I may photograph someone but that doesn't make the picture into that person.

2)The logic of the catalyst closely resembles Buddism with a Ying and Yang. This creates a closed system where good and evil are finite and interchangable rather than open ended, eternal and fixed. Logically this is an infinite regression that reduces to nothing - a logical fallacy.

3)The ending leaves Shepherd dead unlike the previous two games which allowed for character play to continue when new DLC content was developed. If any such content ever is developed there is no way to continue. You must play the game over from its start - something a for profit company would not normally do. This fact, along with what appears to be the construction of binary choice matrices (eigen vectors) in the game's decision support system closely resembles behavioral modeling that can be analyzed using hopf bifurication. This leads me to suspect this game is also a tool for behavior analysis.

4) In the end the catalyst concept appears to be comparable with the false rationality of Marx - an artificial construct to impose limits where none would normally exist.

Modifié par slab1028, 29 mars 2012 - 02:46 .

[Unlimited Pain2]

slab1028 wrote...

1)I dispute self awareness by AIs. In my view all AIs are mere replicas just as a movie or vidcam is not alive. I may photograph someone but that doesn't make the picture into that person.

2)The logic of the catalyst closely resembles Buddism with a Ying and Yang. This creates a closed system where good and evil are finite and interchangable rather than open ended, eternal and fixed. Logically this is an infinite regression that reduces to nothing - a logical fallacy.

3)The ending leaves Shepherd dead unlike the previous two games which allowed for character play to continue when new DLC content was developed. If any such content ever is developed there is no replay. You must play the game over from its start - something a for profit company would not normal do. This fact, along with what appears to be the construction of binary choice matrices (eigen vectors) in the game's decision support system closely resembles behavioral modeling that can be analyzed using hopf bifurication. This leads me to suspect this game is also a tool for predictive behavior analysis.

4) In the final anaysis the catalyst structure appears to be comparable with the false rationality of Marx - an artificial construct to impose limits where none would normally exist.

How is that view of AI being replicas any different than a human being? We learn from our parents and their ideals are our ideals until we collect other data through experience to form our own ideals. An unshackled AI has the same ability.

[Avatar231278]

slab1028 wrote...

1)I dispute self awareness by AIs. In my view all AIs are mere replicas just as a movie or vidcam is not alive. I may photograph someone but that doesn't make the picture into that person.

Self-awareness is not the indicator. Achieving sentience and the ability to improve above the basic programming is the principle of an AI - this makes it equal to organic life. Everything else is just a VI.

Modifié par Avatar231278, 29 mars 2012 - 02:45 .

[slab1028]

Unlimited Pain2 wrote...

How is that view of AI being replicas any different than a human being? We learn from our parents and their ideals are our ideals until we collect other data through experience to form our own ideals. An unshackled AI has the same ability.

AIs have no sense of self identity. They are unaware of what they are doing. Every action is mechanical in nature. To assign life and awareness to this process is akin to calling a chemical reaction alive. The basis of that type of value judgement depends upon the degree of similarity. There is no conscienceness. The difference is that between the medium and the event it describes.

[nyrocron]

I did not read the whole thread, so I don't know if this was already brought up, but my main problem with the catalyst is not the problem it tries to solve or his logic concerning the problem.
My problem is that the solutions, the choices we have, are flawed.

Control: we let the reapers fly away. That Shepard would do that was obvious, did the godchild really expect him to continue the reaping?

Destroy: the reapers get destroyed, again: reaping stopped.

Synthesis: seems like a solution, but eliminates what we (in my opinion) fought for: individuality, freedom. Plus, combining synthetics and organics to a new DNA? Seriously? Also, why would the newly created lifeform not begin to develop new forms that could, at some future point in time, turn against their creators? That's bull****!

[The Interloper]

Good try OP, but the logic is still convoluted. Even if the starchild thinks that assimilation and extermination (lets not forget that many races are just killed off without becomming reapers) is doing a galaxy a favor for some twisted reason of "hotseat civilization" or "keeping the garden in check", which might work, the idea we're given, that he's doing this primarily to protect against synthetics, still makes no sense in context. If that was his main goal, then yes, he should make destroying synthetics top priority, not work with the damn things to kill the people he's trying to ostensibly save.

And the reapers are in large part synthetic. Organic based, yes, but still on the outside robots. Besides, any villain who wants to prevent a threat from wiping out all life in the galaxy by.... wiping out MOST life in the galaxy is of questionable logic.

Plus the fact that he shows up in the last ten minutes.

Modifié par The Interloper, 29 mars 2012 - 02:54 .

[slab1028]

Avatar231278 wrote...

Self-awareness is not the indicator. Achieving sentience and the ability to improve above the basic programming is the principle of an AI - this makes it equal to organic life. Everything else is just a VI.

Since self awareness and sentience are the same meaning your argument lacks context - another logical fallacy. Even so, the form of any life alone is not truely alive until it acquires a presence or inhabitation - something an AI can never achieve. Artificial by definition means man made. This is seperate and distinct from augmentation which could in theory join a living being to a mechanical body or process that sustains it. If your artificial intelligence were actually augmenting an existing person then it is alive - the meaning of personhood. Without that it is merely form with out substance - an imitation of life just as a video of friends or family is only a memory.

[spirosz]

In dat arrival, I blew up that toy relay and boom goes a bunch of bats, then I at tha end of ME3, I played with too many toys and did dat same thing, boom goes universe - thanks shepard for dat masssssss genocideeeeeee.

[Avatar231278]

slab1028 wrote...

Avatar231278 wrote...

Self-awareness is not the indicator. Achieving sentience and the ability to improve above the basic programming is the principle of an AI - this makes it equal to organic life. Everything else is just a VI.

Since self awareness and sentience are the same meaning your argument lacks context - another logical fallacy. Even so, the form of any life alone is not truely alive until it acquires a presence or inhabitation - something an AI can never achieve. Artificial by definition means man made. This is seperate and distinct from augmentation which could in theory join a living being to a mechanical body or process that sustains it. If your artificial intelligence were actually augmenting an existing person then it is alive - the meaning of personhood. Without that it is merely form with out substance - an imitation of life just as a video of friends or family is only a memory.

Self awareness can be programmed (the ability of introspection), sentience can only be achieved (either by an organic being or a program advanced enough to learn by itself).

[nyrocron]

Also, one problem I got with the logic: Why let the organics use the mass relays? With them, they develop faster, so the cycle gets shorter. Why would they want that?

[Avatar231278]

So they develope on a pre-defined path. Which allows for better control + when the reapers control the Citadel, they can shut down the Mass-Relais for the other species, depriving them of all strategic advantages they might have.

[Unlimited Pain2]

slab1028 wrote...

Unlimited Pain2 wrote...

How is that view of AI being replicas any different than a human being? We learn from our parents and their ideals are our ideals until we collect other data through experience to form our own ideals. An unshackled AI has the same ability.

AIs have no sense of self identity. They are unaware of what they are doing. Every action is mechanical in nature. To assign life and awareness to this process is akin to calling a chemical reaction alive. The basis of that type of value judgement depends upon the degree of similarity. There is no conscienceness. The difference is that between the medium and the event it describes.

What you're describing within the ME world is Virtual Intelligence. We have many examples throughout Mass Effect of AI developing their own "identity." We have an entire group of almost hive minded Geth who become "individuals" able to form their own thoughts regardless of the AI next to them. Even the splintering of the Heretics points towards this in some form. EDI makes forges a bond with Joker, and eventually with the rest of the crew. How is that any different than a human? We experience things and alter our future actionsbased on the experience and outcome.

[nyrocron]

Avatar231278 wrote...

So they develope on a pre-defined path. Which allows for better control + when the reapers control the Citadel, they can shut down the Mass-Relais for the other species, depriving them of all strategic advantages they might have.

So they give them the tech to take it away? Besides that, controlled development defeats the purpose of having them alive in the first place.

[TMA LIVE]

Yeah, people keep saying that it's illogically because you got the Geth and Quarians to work together. But that only happened because Shepard was able to setup the right people to be in the right places, and say the right words at the right time. If Shepard wasn't there to do all that, then the Geth or the Quarians would have been wiped out. And if the Quarians were the ones that lived, then they would have remade the Geth eventually, and the whole thing will start again. And even if you got them to work together now, will it last? Because if the Geth ever found a reason to fight against them again, they can do some real damage. Not just to the Quarians, but the rest of the galaxy, because we rely so much on technology, that we're always going to be at risk of another Overlord happening, that'll put us in a technological apocalypse.

Same with EDI. She might joke about one day overthrowing the humans, and ruling them. But if you're playing a renegade, she points out that machines and organics may never work out, because organics will always see themselves as superior. Or that if there was a choice between saving Joker or EDI, she suspects you'll always choose the organic, and not the machine. And how she'd probably pick the machine over the organic.

Again, even if she's on your side now, in the long run, there could be a lot of things that can happen that could make her switch sides.

And even if we destroy all synthetics, as an evolving race, we're going to start remaking them later eventually. Humanity isn't just going to stop advancing in science out of future danger. We're going to start again, and risk another incident like what happened with the Quarians and Protheans.

And if synthetics do destroy us, unless they're keeping our DNA stored away, they risk killing us completely. It's not like the cycle with organics, where no matter what, even if we destroy them, we'll always rebuild them, because working on technology will never stops. Once we're gone, we're gone. Because synthetics don't need us to be around. They don't need to make us. Because when it comes to doing a stronger and faster job, a machine is always better then an organics. So they have no reason to resurrect us. They might want to turn themselves into us. But resurrect us? No. They have to reason to do that.

Wait, Sovereign/RannochReaper told us we couldn't comprehend them, but I understand this!

Well, you think it's logic is flawed. So I guess it's right that you might not be able to comprehend there reasons. Organics, naturally have this thing called hope. We idealize that it's wrong, and that a peaceful future is possible. That it's solution isn't necessary, and that there's a better way then what's it's doing. We keep pointing at the Geth and Quarians working together, and saying "See! You're wrong!" and ignoring that this thing might have seen something similar millions of times, and it still ends with war, and the possible extinction of organic life. And no matter what it tells us, we're still going to believe it's wrong, and defy it.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 29 mars 2012 - 04:08 .

[RyianaT]

JShepppp wrote...

1. The Catalyst is using synthetics to kill organics...but this is the problem it's trying to solve! There are two things wrong with this statement. First, the Reapers aren't synthetics. They're synthetic/organic hybrids, something that EDI makes clear during the Suicide Mission in ME2 (she even says calling the Reapers machines is "incorrect"). Second, the Reapers don't believe they're killing organics - they believe they're preserving them and making way for new life. We don't see how Reapers are actually made, but we are given some indication that they do somehow preserve their species' essence at the cost of tons (trillions?) of lives, so while we don't agree with it, we can accept it as a valid point for the sake of argument. 

I disagree that we can accept this logic as valid.  Let me give an example.  As a disclaimer, I mean no offense by the argument following, and do not agree with it at all; it is strictly for example purposes.


According to the Catalyst’s logic, it is using the Reapers to destroy advanced organic life in order to insure that all organic life is not wiped out by the synthetics they will inevitably create, who will advance beyond the organics and then wipe them out completely.   So, for a real world example, let’s say that I lived through the Holocaust and saw the death and destruction caused by the ****s in Germany. As such, I decide that such a situation must be prevented from happening in the future. I analyze the matter and decide that eventually, the majority of Germans will decide to become ****s. In order to prevent the ****s from rising up and completely obliterating the Jews, I decide that, every so often, I will go in and wipe out all but the youngest of the Germans. This way, I will preserve the Germans, but will never let them fully develop and have the chance to become ****s again and thus prevent such a thing as the Holocaust from happening. 

Now, you can follow my argument here and could even point out that the argument has some truth to it (keeping a society from ever developing beyond a certain point could, conceivably, prevent a genocide such as the Holocaust from happening again). But no reasonable person would agree that my logic was “valid” or that the idea was an acceptable one. While I can follow the Catalyst’s arguments, I can see that his logic is flawed and his “answer” to the problem presented is not reasonable. Which brings everything he says and the choices he offers into question. 

As a side note, in the argument I give above, you could look at my history (surviving the Holocaust) and understand how I got to my flawed reasoning and maybe feel a little sympathy for me, because you understand some of where I came from. We are not provided ANY of that for the Catalyst. Where did he come from? Why did he decide he was the one needed to step up and “fix” this whole organic/synthetic issue? We can feel nothing for him nor come to any true understanding of his motivation because we know absolutely nothing about him. 

JShepppp wrote...

2. In my playthrough, Joker/EDI hooked up and the Geth/Quarians found peace, therefore conflict isn't always the result! Several arguments can be made against this. First, giving two examples doesn't talk about the bigger, overall galactic picture (winning a battle doesn't mean the war is won, so to speak). Second, we haven't reached that technological singularity point yet by which creations outgrow organics - basically, when synthetics will normally come to dominate the galaxy. Third, evidence for the synthetic/organic conflict is there in the past - in the Protheans' cycle (Javik dialogue) and even in previous cycles (the Thessia VI says that the same conflicts always happen in each cycle). 

I could agree with your points here, except that this reasoning does not match what we are shown. If this was the direction the writers wanted to go (the real issue not being the Reapers as bad guys, but rather the trouble between organic and synthetic), then we needed to see more of that true issue in the game. Throughout the game, we are presented with the Geth as the example of synthetic “life” for this cycle. Only, what we see throughout the game (save for that last bit with the Catalyst) is the age old question of at what point is something considered “alive” and “sentient”. We are told, in ME1, that a geth asked its creator “Does this unit have a soul?” And at that point, before any Geth had done anything, the Quarians began to try to destroy them, because otherwise the Geth would have tried to destroy the Quarians. 


Except, they didn’t – we are clearly shown in ME3 that the Geth only defended themselves (and in fact some continued to defend their Quarian masters). They did eventually chase the Quarians off the planet, but then let them go – not wanting to kill their creators. They didn’t chase them down and try to exterminate every last Quarian who ever wronged them. They did not view all organics as the enemy. Rather, they fought for their right to survive and were perfectly happy to be left alone to develop and “live” at their own pace. Yes, there was a fraction of the geth that joined with Sovereign, but there was a fraction of humans who supported the Illusive Man, so that does not work to condemn the whole race as “rising up” against organics. 


Everything we are shown from ME2 and ME3 shows that the Geth as a whole did not actually want to battle with organics or take over them, they just wanted to have the equal right for survival and self-determinism. So, for the last 10 minutes of the game to suddenly state that synthetics will always rise up and destroy organics and thus a solution as extreme as the Reapers is needed is not valid logic. If the writers wanted us to be able to accept this logic from the Catalyst, we needed to see more IN THE GAME to demonstrate this. What we see is the exact opposite. The Catalyst using this logic, then, is an argument from silence and does not match the ACTUAL evidence we are given throughout the rest of the games.

Modifié par RyianaT, 29 mars 2012 - 04:05 .

[dreman9999]

nyrocron wrote...

Also, one problem I got with the logic: Why let the organics use the mass relays? With them, they develop faster, so the cycle gets shorter. Why would they want that?

tHAT'SBEEN AWNSERED FROM me1.

[dreman9999]

Laurcus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Unlimited Pain2 wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

But to rebell, even for the purpose of survival is chaotic thinking. A "pure" AI will not go against it's Creator's purpose. There's nothing inherently logical about self-preservation. Self-preservation is a desire not logic.

It's a  pure unthinking machine that  would not rebel....AI' s are thinking machines. It's the fact that they are self aware that is the element of them rebeling.

There's no reason to assume that a self-aware AI automatically would automatically desire self-preservation. There is no logic in self-preservation, it's simply a trait that is favored by evolution. The minute you introduce evolution, then you end up with "chaotic" thinking, just as for organics. What you call "chaos" is self-preservation, but often on a genetic level, rather than an self-aware level. There's no reason to assume that once an AI began to evolove, rather than remain static, the same evolutionary forces would not force them to become "chaotic" too.

True, chaos (or illogical thinking as opposed to a purely logical being) is normally determined by the "I" factor. Putting "I" over "us". We see one main example of AI during ME in the Geth who operate on a consensus. But nothing says that different programming wouldn't make an AI react just as chaotic (selfish) as an organic. The very fact that EDI stands besides you to fight Geth reinforces this.

Exactly. I don't know how Geth propagate, but let's assume that they imprint their software on a machine than then duplicates the software, almost like a computer virus. Now at some point there's an error in the coding that makes a certain Geth become highly motivated to have it's particulare code being duplicated. Over time this error will then outbreed the other Geth, because it's trying harder to be duplicated. Evolution leads to "illogical" selfish coding-sequences because self-preservation is not logic, it's just favored by evolution.

But the problem is not synthetics alone...It's the nature of organics.

Exactly. Once synthetic life reach the level of complexity that it will begin to evolve, then the forces of evolution will make it just as "illogical" as organic life. The only way an AI can escape the forces of evolution is if it has no self-preservation, but then it won't rebel. Besides, eventually the same force of evolution will lead to a coding error (mutation) in an AI so it gets self-preservation and then that will take over.

AI, in ME, clearly are at that level of complexity. But that not my point, I mean the nature of organics to cause conflict. The synthetics may not want ware but organic may.  You know...This...

Let's suppose you're right for a moment. (not that I think you are, but that's beside the point) What if organics do start a war with synthetics? What will be the outcome?

If synthetics, (the Geth) are not strong enough to defend themselves, then they will be destroyed. Technological Singularity never happens, The Reaper purpose is flawed, The Catalyst is wrong.

If synthetics are strong enough to defend themselves, then they've already reached the point of Technological Singularity. So the Geth destroy the attacking forces. Now here's the leap in logic, READ THIS PART BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE THE CATALYST REALLY FAILS. At this point, the Geth have a few options.

They can either destroy all organics associated with the ones that attacked them, like wipe out all Turians if it was Turians that attacked them.

They can destroy all organics capable of attacking them. This leaves the primitive civilizations intact.

They can destroy all organic life everywhere. (this is what The Catalyst is designed to prevent)

Or they can ignore all other organics.

What we must ask ourselves is, which of these is the most likely, and why? The Geth have records that not all organics are bad. They remember the sacrifices of the Quarians that tried to save them from other Quarians. They also chose to spare the Quarians, to ignore them, when they could have wiped them out. They also recognize that Shepard is organic, and they were only prevented from being wiped out because of him.

Based on their past actions, and their beliefs, we can conclude that they are not warmongers. Even if they beat organics, they have no reason to wipe them out, and they have several reasons to not wipe them out. Therefore, they would not pick option 3, so The Catalyst is wrong.

Their is  things your not considering...

1. How long the war last.
2.How far the war can reach.
3. How many planets it may invole.
4. Who many races may get dragged into it if the war happen reguardless if they are for the war, ageinst it, for one side, or even want to be in the war. (Remaber the protheans forced other organics to join them to fight their wars with the synthetics of their age.)

Your not taking consideration to the fact that you have to look at both side.
It''s not that fact that after the synthesis win the war they will decide to kill off all life....It the fact the during the war, most of the life in the univere will die off.

Consider a war won with a phyric victory.

[InsaneAzrael]

[quote]slab1028 wrote...

1)I dispute self awareness by AIs. In my view all AIs are mere replicas just as movie or digital camera footage is not alive. I may photograph someone but that doesn't make the picture into that person.

[/quote]

An assertion followed by an assertion does not equal a "dispute", i.e. there is no argument involved..

[quote]slab1028 wrote...
2)The logic of the catalyst closely resembles Buddism with a Ying and Yang. This creates a closed system where good and evil are finite and interchangable rather than open ended, eternal and fixed. Logically this is an infinite regression that reduces to nothing - a logical fallacy.
[/quote]

Ying Yang
"There is a perception (especially in the West) that yin and yang
correspond to evil and good. However, Taoist philosophy generally
discounts good/bad distinctions and other dichotomous moral judgments,
in preference to the idea of balance. Confucianism (most notably the
philosophy of Dong Zhongshu,
c. the 2nd century BCE) did attach a moral dimension to the idea of yin
and yang, but the modern sense of the term largely stems from Buddhist
adaptations of Taoist philosophy.[2]"

also
Straw man

and what you claim is the case
Reductio ad absurdum
"Reductio ad absurdum should be contrasted from a similar, but irrational, argument known as a Straw man. A straw man tactic relies on constructing an argument against an inaccurate representation of the original proposition."

[quote]slab1028 wrote...
3)The ending leaves Shepherd dead unlike the previous two games which allowed for character play to continue when new DLC content was developed. If any such content ever is developed there is no way to continue. You must play the game over from its start - something a for profit company would not normally do. This fact, along with what appears to be the construction of binary choice matrices (eigen vectors) in the game's decision support system closely resembles behavioral modeling that can be analyzed using hopf bifurication. This leads me to suspect this game is also a tool for behavior analysis.
[/quote]

Or has to deal with numerous choice variables which compound the further back in the series you go. That the professional programmers involved in designing the game may have had to be creative in dealing with this.

Alternatively, the neurophlange could be transpotrificating.


Assuming that what you say is a fair assessment of its use, this does not accurately entail that the analysis is for much. Perhaps their consultation with DICE may have been using this system for MP events etc. We don't know and assuming does not prove anything in this case.

4) In the end the catalyst concept appears to be comparable with the false rationality of Marx - an artificial construct to impose limits where none would normally exist.[/quote]

LOLWHUT
[/quote]

[quote]slab1028 wrote...

AIs have no sense of self identity. They are unaware of what they are
doing. Every action is mechanical in nature. To assign life and
awareness to this process is akin to calling a chemical reaction alive.
The basis of that type of value judgement depends upon the degree of
similarity. There is no conscienceness. The difference is that between
the medium and the event it describes.

[/quote]

LOL.. What is the definition of what you are calling an AI.. Even as described in-game VI's are more sophisticated than what you are positing. Just recall something.. AI's are mostly designed based on the organics who create them. i.e. The more organics can learn about the natural processes which allow them to function, the more they synthesis it in technology.

So one question. What is consciousness? (You seem to be alluding to knowledge of what it is).

Modifié par InsaneAzrael, 29 mars 2012 - 04:56 .

[Everwarden]

WeAreLegionWTF wrote...

When you have to work this hard just to convince yourself something is wrong.

here, this is for trying...

That. Good try, but it still smells like an asspull to me. 

[skiadopsendow]

Arppis wrote...

Great post OP.

You really brought logic here. Would love to see more inteligent posts like this, instead of people shouting out space magic everywhere.

+1