1057 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

Of course the Catalyst is going to be able to justify itself using its own logic and prejudices. That doesn't make it correct. That doesn't make it 'good'. It is the single most evil being in the Mass Effect universe, and its 'solution' is horrific no matter how it tries to spin it.

I think most people need to understand that it's not just logic and prejudices...It's mostly pure observation. It not asying and assumption based on data....It the fact the the reapers had the time to see this happen over and over again.

[Myrmedus]

TMA LIVE wrote...

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.

I'll have to remember that every time I'm in an argument then.

"You can't comprehend my argument" apparently disproves anyone disagreeing with me.

[emperoralku]

dreman9999 wrote...

Before saying that it makes no sense, not that it not an issue of synthetic rebeling....But the conflict of organic and synthetic is what the problem is. Much who say this never take in the consideration that the problem lyies with the organics not syethestiic. The nature of organics is the problem.

Even if we take what you say as being correct, his solution still doesn't make sense. He is attempting to control something he created. Which will rebel against him. That means there is no way to say it will work and it is not a solution at all.

In response to your other assertion that reapers didn't create themselves there are two issues there too

1) Is the catalyst a reaper? There is no evidence of that therefore I we can assume that he is not.

2) Even if he is a reaper, EVERY reaper is created by others.

[Ziggeh]

emperoralku wrote...
Catalyst: Chaos. The created will always rebel against the creators. But we found a way to stop that from happening.

So it's solution to prevent an inevitable rebelion by a created sentience is to create something with sentience.

That's some major Herp Derp.

I'd argue that's an overly literal interpretation of the statement, but it's easier just to point out that they may have simply decided to stop it from happening after they had been created.

[Ziggeh]

emperoralku wrote...

2) Even if he is a reaper, EVERY reaper is created by others.

Do you think he is suggesting that if left alone, all the geth would rebel against all the other geth, and then the geth they created would rebel against them?

[emperoralku]

Ziggeh wrote...

Do you think he is suggesting that if left alone, all the geth would rebel against all the other geth, and then the geth they created would rebel against them?

According to his statement, yes. Even more so given that each reaper is made from different organics and is supposed to store their identity. Different motives, desires etc.

Ziggeh wrote...

I'd argue that's an overly literal interpretation of the statement, but it's easier just to point out that they may have simply decided to stop it from happening after they had been created.

 

We can only interpret it literally, it is an absolute statement. Decided to stop what from happening? If they cad decide to stop so can others meaning his other absolute statements about inevitability are false.

[dreman9999]

emperoralku wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Before saying that it makes no sense, not that it not an issue of synthetic rebeling....But the conflict of organic and synthetic is what the problem is. Much who say this never take in the consideration that the problem lyies with the organics not syethestiic. The nature of organics is the problem.

Even if we take what you say as being correct, his solution still doesn't make sense. He is attempting to control something he created. Which will rebel against him. That means there is no way to say it will work and it is not a solution at all.

In response to your other assertion that reapers didn't create themselves there are two issues there too

1) Is the catalyst a reaper? There is no evidence of that therefore I we can assume that he is not.

2) Even if he is a reaper, EVERY reaper is created by others.

1. He never said he created the reapers for one. He logic is that the created rebel ageints the creater...Not the controled with will rebel agienst the controler.

2.Also, even with reapers making reapers it more like parents creating a child then man make machine. But that was besides the point, you also ignoring fact the he was talking about synthetic vs organics.

[dreman9999]

emperoralku wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Do you think he is suggesting that if left alone, all the geth would rebel against all the other geth, and then the geth they created would rebel against them?

According to his statement, yes. Even more so given that each reaper is made from different organics and is supposed to store their identity. Different motives, desires etc.

Ziggeh wrote...

I'd argue that's an overly literal interpretation of the statement, but it's easier just to point out that they may have simply decided to stop it from happening after they had been created.

 

We can only interpret it literally, it is an absolute statement. Decided to stop what from happening? If they cad decide to stop so can others meaning his other absolute statements about inevitability are false.

1.So by you intepretation, I have to kill all children because they may rebel ageinst me.

2. That argument might work....If he didn't not clearify later in the conversation about what he was refering to....
http://www.youtube.c...GZpNCxU#t=1032s
Ooops....He did clearify.

Modifié par dreman9999, 29 mars 2012 - 10:36 .

[emperoralku]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. He never said he created the reapers for one. He logic is that the created rebel ageints the creater...Not the controled with will rebel agienst the controler.

2.Also, even with reapers making reapers it more like parents creating a child then man make machine. But that was besides the point, you also ignoring fact the he was talking about synthetic vs organics.

1) At best this leads to civil war as reapers fight each other.

2) He stated created and creators. You are choosing to interpret this as synthetic vs organic. In any case there is no real difference other than the substances used in manufacture. It's much the same as the difference between turians and humans. If you create a conventional biochemistry based species from scratch they are still synthetic in origin.

[dreman9999]

emperoralku wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. He never said he created the reapers for one. He logic is that the created rebel ageints the creater...Not the controled with will rebel agienst the controler.

2.Also, even with reapers making reapers it more like parents creating a child then man make machine. But that was besides the point, you also ignoring fact the he was talking about synthetic vs organics.

1) At best this leads to civil war as reapers fight each other.

2) He stated created and creators. You are choosing to interpret this as synthetic vs organic. In any case there is no real difference other than the substances used in manufacture. It's much the same as the difference between turians and humans. If you create a conventional biochemistry based species from scratch they are still synthetic in origin.

1.So by you intepretation, I have to kill all children because they may rebel ageinst me.

2. That argument might work....If he didn't not clearify later in the conversation about what he was refering to....
http://www.youtube.c...GZpNCxU#t=1032s
Ooops....He did clearify. 

[emperoralku]

dreman9999 wrote...
1.So by you intepretation, I have to kill all children because they may rebel ageinst me.[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/sideways.png[/smilie]

2. That argument might work....If he didn't not clearify later in the conversation about what he was refering to....
http://www.youtube.c...GZpNCxU#t=1032s
Ooops....He did clearify.

1) Hey you're the one defending it's reasoning, not me.

2) His "clarification" did not alter his initial statement of creators and created. He merely stated an additional problem.

[dreman9999]

emperoralku wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1.So by you intepretation, I have to kill all children because they may rebel ageinst me.[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/sideways.png[/smilie]

2. That argument might work....If he didn't not clearify later in the conversation about what he was refering to....
http://www.youtube.c...GZpNCxU#t=1032s
Ooops....He did clearify.

1) Hey you're the one defending it's reasoning, not me.

2) His "clarification" did not alter his initial statement of creators and created. He merely stated an additional problem.

But this clearifiction made it clear he was purly taking about organics and Synthetic....He would not randomly go of to another point unrelated to the conversation.  He clearly mean organics vs synthetics.

Modifié par dreman9999, 29 mars 2012 - 10:42 .

[emperoralku]

dreman9999 wrote...

But this clearifiction made it clear he was purly taking about organics and Synthetic....He would not randomly go of to another point unrelated to the conversation.  He clearly mean organics vs synthetics.

An assumption that is unproven. To me it sounded like an additional layer to the problem.

[Ziggeh]

emperoralku wrote...

We can only interpret it literally, it is an absolute statement.

If someone points out I'm chewing my pen again, and I respond "I'm always doing that", it is not an absolute statement. I am not suggesting that I left the womb gnawing on a bic biro.

His sentence quite comfortably covers both the literal "every instance" and the more vague and dramatic "it's frequent".

You've chosen an interpretation that fits your argument, but that doesn't alter the nature of the langauge.

Ziggeh wrote...
Decided to stop what from happening? If they cad decide to stop so can others meaning his other absolute statements about inevitability are false.

Rebellion. We have no evidence that they did not rebel against whatever created them, so it's not a great argument.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 29 mars 2012 - 10:46 .

[Lugaidster]

If there's circular reasoning (which you agree with), then the logic is not right. I don't believe there's logic reasoning, but I already argued that for 25+ pages on my own thread. The logic of the catalyst is correct, but you digress a fair bit with your explanations.

To sum it up, the logic is the process of reasoning from premises to a conclusion. If your conclusion is a logical result of the premises without assumptions being made then the logic is correct. To be noted is that the premises don't have to be true.

You make a lot of assumptions, so what you are arguing is not the validity of the argument the Catalyst proposes, but the validity of his position. I don't agree he has a valid position.

Modifié par Lugaidster, 29 mars 2012 - 10:48 .

[emperoralku]

Ziggeh wrote...

If someone points out I'm chewing my pen again, and I respond "I'm always doing that", it is not an absolute statement. I am not suggesting that I left the womb gnawing on a bic biro.

His sentence quite comfortably covers both the literal "every instance" and the more vague and dramatic "it's frequent".

You've chosen an interpretation that fits your argument, but that doesn't alter the nature of the langauge.

Incorrect. I have used the statement in a neutral fashion. In your example the statement used is inaccurate and therefore false. We are discussing logic here not liberal interpretations. You can only go by the evidence you have to hand.

Modifié par emperoralku, 29 mars 2012 - 10:49 .

[Atrumitos]

Reapers never seemed to care to enlighten us about their plans and why they do what they do. Unless they have a mandate suggesting that they absolutely must not let us know why they are killing us, saying they are preserving us, right when you are about to destroy them seems like an outright lie to me. More like they need us to create more reapers and they need to convince you not destroy them. The lie sounds like indoctrinations actually. "We are god-like, obey us! We know best!"

Their obvious evilness (every organic species turned to mutant footsoldiers for their cause) doesn't help their case.

It's easier for them to simply stay in the galaxy and police it against AI creation, than go through the whole "Reaping" ordeal. No need for the indoctrinations and crap like that either. Just be there, say why you're there. The mass relays force races to evolve the way you want them to after all, thus they'll come to you and accept you as ruler of the galaxy.

That, along with all the other problems with the catalyst and the ending is what makes me believe in the indoctrination theory. The fact that I refuse to believe the ME team could come up with such a terrible script could make me biased though...

Bottom line is, although the theory does make sense on the surface, it is most likely lies and sweet talking to make you let them do what they want.

Modifié par Atrumitos, 29 mars 2012 - 10:54 .

[dreman9999]

emperoralku wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

But this clearifiction made it clear he was purly taking about organics and Synthetic....He would not randomly go of to another point unrelated to the conversation.  He clearly mean organics vs synthetics.

An assumption that is unproven. To me it sounded like an additional layer to the problem.

I'm sorry...What? The people making a joke about it clearly seem to get it better then you...

"Yo, dawg I heard you don't want to be killed by synthetic so I made you synthetic to kill you every 50000 years so you would be killed by syntheic."

The joke miss alot of points, but it clear that it understood that what ever the star kid is taking about  is refering to organics vs synthetic.
(And yes, I through up a little for using that stupid joke as point in my argument.)

[Ziggeh]

emperoralku wrote...
Incorrect. I have used the statement in a neutral fashion. In your example the statement used is inaccurate and therefore false. We are discussing logic here not liberal interpretations. You can only go by the evidence you have to hand.

And thus assuming he's laying it out in the manner of a formal logical statement. It's only a suprise he didn't lay some maths on us really.

He's your standard sci fi quasi mystical character talking in dramatic terms. Holding him to quite that standard is quite obviously going to present problems. We can either look at the whole of the picture he presents or narrow the view so it neatly fits our own argument.

So yes, if you pretend he only meant the things you think he means he makes no sense. Congratulations.

[emperoralku]

Ziggeh wrote...
Congratulations.

Thank you.  

Bed tiem nao.

[JShepppp]

Hey guys, thanks for your input. I updated the OP with some stuff I found in the thread. Sorry I can't answer each of you individually because there are too many people. Hope no one's offended by this.

[tjc2]

The fact is the idea of a Technological Singularity is not developed by Bioware, it is based on a joke made by the editor of a journal in 1847 when examining the four function calculator.

The above is not the point though, the problem with the ending has nothing to do with the spirit of the Space Magic Child's:wizard: ideas.

The problem is that it was so poorly delivered. The fact that we couldn't tell the Space Child to take a hike and aim our Thanix cannon straight at him. The fact that the ending lacked logical continuity, more space magic:wizard: was the problem.

The fact that the endings were identical is the problem. If there were three distinct endings people would have been happy. Instead we got space magic:wizard:

How long till the moderators destroy this emoticon:wizard:?

[AIR MOORE]

Hmmm, edit. nvm.


1)-The problem still remains that the reapers were created by (insert whoever created them, as we don’t know)… and why did they not rebel against their creators and destroy them? Or, if they did, why the heck is this gap not filled at the end of the story to tell us this happened?


3)
This argument is taken down by the synthesis ending. During the synthesis ending the Catalyst says that this synthesis is the LAST EVOLUTION OF LIFE. Thus… He cannot be trying to protect lower organic
species for the reason to allow them to develop further and “flourish”, because as he notes, once that green explosion goes out, all life stops evolving right then and there. End of story for evolution of all life in the Milky Way Galaxy… this negates ALL FURTHER evolution of any organics, not just the lower ones, or advanced ones.

 

ALSO this does make it an impossibility for the new Organic/Synthetic combo’s to create more (new
synthetics) to do their bidding, which would then kill off everything again. In other words, what’s to say the new organics+synthetics won’t create pure synthetics in the future to do their bidding? (Sure you can speculate X/Y/Z) but there is no reasoning behind it.



4) Already debunked with above. Catalyst doesn’t care about evolution of lower organics in reality, as the synthesis ending stops ALL EVOLUTION OF LIFE at the point the green explosion goes out.

5)-Whether it views it as genocide or not is irrelevant… it is. Just because someone/something doesn’t believe in something, that does not make it any more or less true. So his reasoning is not sound, it’s not
sound at all? The bottom line is when you combine this with the synthesis ending (that he doesn’t care at all about the evolution of life)… it’s a problem.

Modifié par AIR MOORE, 30 mars 2012 - 02:02 .

[lokiarchetype]

1. You've essentially stated "Reapers aren't synthetic, they're both synthetic and organic", which is an obvious contradiction.

2. You're treating belief as if it is relevent in logic when it isn't.
It doesn't matter what the reapers believe they are doing, it matters what they are doing.

Modifié par lokiarchetype, 30 mars 2012 - 02:07 .

[Zine2]

I made a "response" thread to this pointlessness here:

http://social.biowar.../index/10788713