The problem is this:
You can have a logical argument and still be wrong.
Why the Catalyst's Logic is Right (Technological Singularity)
Débuté par
JShepppp
, mars 29 2012 09:04
Retour en haut
#327
Posté 30 mars 2012 - 03:05
JShepppp
-
- Members
- 1 607 messages
Zine2 wrote...
I made a "response" thread to this pointlessness here:
http://social.biowar.../index/10788713
See my Edit Point 14. Thank you for being an exemplar of civility and intellectual maturity.
#328
Posté 30 mars 2012 - 03:05
Tarothlock
-
- Members
- 13 messages
I have not read through all of the responses in this thread, so pardon me if any of this has been previously addressed.
First, you skip the primary and foundational premise in the Catalyst's argument: Organic life will reach a technological singularity at which time synthetics will become the dominant race in the galaxy and only conflict will result. This conflict will result in the extinction of organics. Let's examine the argument as a whole in propositional form:
(i) Organic life will reach a singularity, which will cause synthetics to become the dominant race in the galaxy.
(ii) If (i), then the result will be conflict between organics and synthetics.
(iii) If there is conflict between organics and synthetics, then organics will be destroyed.
Therefore:
(iv) The only way to prevent organics from being destroyed is to create an organic/synthetic hybrid to prevent (i).
This is an invalid argument. Even if all of the premises are true, the conclusion is not logically entailed. First, it is not a logical necessity that (ii) or (iii) are true based off (i). Additionally, premises (ii) and (iii) do not entail the conclusion (iv). In fact to make this argument valid, there must be several more premises, which rule out other possible worlds in which synthetics and organics can co-exist, or worlds in which organics would destroy all synthetics, or worlds in which organics do not make synthetics (which is a galactic law in the ME universe - No AI construction). The only possible synthetic race (given that no one else creates another synthetic race) to overtake organic life is the Geth. The Geth can work with the organics in the galaxy if Shepard takes that path. Therefore, we have no reason to accept the truth of any of the Catalyst's premises, nor additional premises required to make his argument valid in the first place.
Your first point is noted, but is not a knock down argument. There are currently no other known synthetics in the galaxy. The galaxy is cautious of building synthetics and has a ban on their creation. Given that the Geth and EDI can work with organics and not be hostile (both are pacifists to a degree), then there is not a guaranteed conflict.
There are unknowns: First, the Geth are no longer bound by consensus and therefore cannot be held to the same logical consistency that the race was previously held to. There is a possibility that they could become political and aggressive. However, there is also the possibility that Shepard destroyed the Geth, in which case there are no known synthetics other than EDI that pose a threat. With TIM out of the way most of the galaxy will not have the resources to create more synthetics provided all peoples follow galactic law. EDI has grown attached to humans (in particular) and does not have the personality (at present) to take over the galaxy.
However, one may reply to these responses by arguing that since the Geth are now autonomous they can no longer multiply their programing as they previously could. Therefore, the death of the Geth as a race is a much more plausible outcome should galactic conflict arise again. EDI is now one VI but her processing is attached to the Normandy. Without the ship she is a lesser being. Destroy the Normandy and you end whatever threat EDI would pose.
Your second point: If we grant the conclusion you are arguing for (ie. That synthetics will wipe out organics), then we must rely on a deterministic galaxy. The ME world is not deterministic. There would not exist any free will in such a world and given that all of Shepard’s choices do play out in some form allows us to recognize different possibilities. The existence of these possibilities shows the existence of free will in the ME universe and puts to rest any deterministic claims.
The third point is answered by my previous arguments. This is a cry for determinism and it does not hold in the ME universe. The past could repeat itself if the galaxy does not learn from it. It does seem that the reaper threat has allowed the galaxy to work together and unite. This shows there is a possibility for the synthetic/organic conflict to not result in the Catalyst’s conclusion.
It really does not matter what the Catalyst believes it is doing by harvesting organics. Belief does not constitute truth, or fact. Knowledge requires: Justified true belief and whatever condition one needs to avoid the Gettier problem. The Catalyst’s belief that harvesting a race is ascending organics is a value judgment. Value judgments re difficult to assign a truth value to (if you care to read about value judgments and truth conditions look up the metaethics debate in philosophy that has raged for over 100 years). In fact value judgments may even be without truth conditions. In any case, violation of individual autonomy and numerous other arguments can be made against the harvesting/ascending case. This is not a logically strong argument unless it can be defended with logic and a theory of value. I find this to be a difficult argument.
The Catalyst may believe that he is valuing diversity, but it is impossible for him to maintain this position with logical consistency. First, he created the Reapers. Second, he argues that he controls them. Third, Sovereign states that we evolve in the way they desire and along the paths they have determined for us. Therefore, if the Catalyst is controlling the Reapers and the Reapers believe that organic evolution is not random, but determined, then the Catalyst must believe the same thing (or else he is not “assuming direct control”). As such, this position is logically inconsistent with the rest of his beliefs.
Point 4 is argued against is my previous statement. However, the point that the Catalyst needed the Crucible is not valid. The Catalyst created the Reapers (synthetic/organics as per your previous argument), which leads one to believe this is a possibility from the start. In fact, synthesis is what the Reapers do also. The Crucible is not some new technology that makes synthesis possible.
The definition of genocide is: the deliberate and systematic destruction in whole of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. Whatever the Catalyst thinks it is doing is irrelevant for a logical argument. The definition being misconstrued does not add weight to the argument. In fact, it does mean that the argument is invalid because a faulty definition destroys deductive validity.
This really does not help or debunk the Catalyst’s argument. In fact, if the Catalyst controls the Reapers, then it only hurts the Catalyst’s consistency with his final statements.
This has nothing to do with the Catalyst’s logic at all. It has to do with its method of determining its value judgments. I would argue that many people think in a similar manner (the numbers approach). I teach logic and ethics to college students and I can say in my experience many people sympathize with Utilitarian ethics. This is a utilitarian calculation. Those who agree with the “miracle” of human life would be Kantians or Divine Command Theorists. This is not a question for logic, but for value theory and ethics.
This is my reply. I do not think that you have a very strong case to back up the Catalyst’s arguments. I wrote this rather quickly and I did not examine all of the possible replies that could be made to my response (as I typically do when making philosophical arguments); however, I believe at the basic level there is no legitimate defense of the Catalyst’s logic. Remember deductive validity requires necessity and logical entailment of the conclusion if the premises are true. Beyond that soundness checks the truth of the premises. I drifted a bit into soundness because that was how your original post was written. Again, there is no logical entailment of the Catalyst’s conclusion based on the premises we have available to us.
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.
First, you skip the primary and foundational premise in the Catalyst's argument: Organic life will reach a technological singularity at which time synthetics will become the dominant race in the galaxy and only conflict will result. This conflict will result in the extinction of organics. Let's examine the argument as a whole in propositional form:
(i) Organic life will reach a singularity, which will cause synthetics to become the dominant race in the galaxy.
(ii) If (i), then the result will be conflict between organics and synthetics.
(iii) If there is conflict between organics and synthetics, then organics will be destroyed.
Therefore:
(iv) The only way to prevent organics from being destroyed is to create an organic/synthetic hybrid to prevent (i).
This is an invalid argument. Even if all of the premises are true, the conclusion is not logically entailed. First, it is not a logical necessity that (ii) or (iii) are true based off (i). Additionally, premises (ii) and (iii) do not entail the conclusion (iv). In fact to make this argument valid, there must be several more premises, which rule out other possible worlds in which synthetics and organics can co-exist, or worlds in which organics would destroy all synthetics, or worlds in which organics do not make synthetics (which is a galactic law in the ME universe - No AI construction). The only possible synthetic race (given that no one else creates another synthetic race) to overtake organic life is the Geth. The Geth can work with the organics in the galaxy if Shepard takes that path. Therefore, we have no reason to accept the truth of any of the Catalyst's premises, nor additional premises required to make his argument valid in the first place.
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).
Your first point is noted, but is not a knock down argument. There are currently no other known synthetics in the galaxy. The galaxy is cautious of building synthetics and has a ban on their creation. Given that the Geth and EDI can work with organics and not be hostile (both are pacifists to a degree), then there is not a guaranteed conflict.
There are unknowns: First, the Geth are no longer bound by consensus and therefore cannot be held to the same logical consistency that the race was previously held to. There is a possibility that they could become political and aggressive. However, there is also the possibility that Shepard destroyed the Geth, in which case there are no known synthetics other than EDI that pose a threat. With TIM out of the way most of the galaxy will not have the resources to create more synthetics provided all peoples follow galactic law. EDI has grown attached to humans (in particular) and does not have the personality (at present) to take over the galaxy.
However, one may reply to these responses by arguing that since the Geth are now autonomous they can no longer multiply their programing as they previously could. Therefore, the death of the Geth as a race is a much more plausible outcome should galactic conflict arise again. EDI is now one VI but her processing is attached to the Normandy. Without the ship she is a lesser being. Destroy the Normandy and you end whatever threat EDI would pose.
Your second point: If we grant the conclusion you are arguing for (ie. That synthetics will wipe out organics), then we must rely on a deterministic galaxy. The ME world is not deterministic. There would not exist any free will in such a world and given that all of Shepard’s choices do play out in some form allows us to recognize different possibilities. The existence of these possibilities shows the existence of free will in the ME universe and puts to rest any deterministic claims.
The third point is answered by my previous arguments. This is a cry for determinism and it does not hold in the ME universe. The past could repeat itself if the galaxy does not learn from it. It does seem that the reaper threat has allowed the galaxy to work together and unite. This shows there is a possibility for the synthetic/organic conflict to not result in the Catalyst’s conclusion.
JShepppp wrote...
3. If synthetics are the problem and the Catalyst is trying to protect organics, it should just kill Synthetics instead! /b] 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.
It really does not matter what the Catalyst believes it is doing by harvesting organics. Belief does not constitute truth, or fact. Knowledge requires: Justified true belief and whatever condition one needs to avoid the Gettier problem. The Catalyst’s belief that harvesting a race is ascending organics is a value judgment. Value judgments re difficult to assign a truth value to (if you care to read about value judgments and truth conditions look up the metaethics debate in philosophy that has raged for over 100 years). In fact value judgments may even be without truth conditions. In any case, violation of individual autonomy and numerous other arguments can be made against the harvesting/ascending case. This is not a logically strong argument unless it can be defended with logic and a theory of value. I find this to be a difficult argument.
The Catalyst may believe that he is valuing diversity, but it is impossible for him to maintain this position with logical consistency. First, he created the Reapers. Second, he argues that he controls them. Third, Sovereign states that we evolve in the way they desire and along the paths they have determined for us. Therefore, if the Catalyst is controlling the Reapers and the Reapers believe that organic evolution is not random, but determined, then the Catalyst must believe the same thing (or else he is not “assuming direct control”). As such, this position is logically inconsistent with the rest of his beliefs.
4. The Catalyst should've done Synthesis instead of Reaping in the first place! First, doing synthesis may stop new life from flourishing by the Reapers' logic (see leaked script above); without clearing out more advanced races, younger ones might not be able to develop freely. Second, the Catalyst would've needed the Crucible. A pseudo-argument (i.e. not based on fact from the story, but interesting) can be made that the Synthesis was the long-term solution but the Catalyst would only enact it when the galaxy was "ready" for it by building the Crucible.
Point 4 is argued against is my previous statement. However, the point that the Catalyst needed the Crucible is not valid. The Catalyst created the Reapers (synthetic/organics as per your previous argument), which leads one to believe this is a possibility from the start. In fact, synthesis is what the Reapers do also. The Crucible is not some new technology that makes synthesis possible.
JShepppp wrote...
5. But...the Catalyst is justifying genocide! It doesn't view it as genocide. Rather than exterminating species, it believes it's preserving them and even stopping them from being exterminated or enslaving/exterminating others; arguably, it believes it's doing the exact opposite. But of course, it is actually genocide, and we should try to stop it. Just because the idea of what the Catalyst is doing is evil doesn't mean that its logic is flawed. I personally don't agree with its methods, but its reasoning seems sound.
The definition of genocide is: the deliberate and systematic destruction in whole of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. Whatever the Catalyst thinks it is doing is irrelevant for a logical argument. The definition being misconstrued does not add weight to the argument. In fact, it does mean that the argument is invalid because a faulty definition destroys deductive validity.
JShepppp wrote...
6. Wait, Sovereign/RannochReaper told us we couldn't comprehend them, but I understand this! There are two ways to interpret what they said. One is that we actually couldn't academically comprehend it, in which case they must've been lying or it's just bad writing. Another is that we couldn't possibly comprehend the magnitude/scope of it, which is true. A human with a lifespan of 150 years (canon) can't comprehend hundreds of millions of years of organic evolution and stuff.
This really does not help or debunk the Catalyst’s argument. In fact, if the Catalyst controls the Reapers, then it only hurts the Catalyst’s consistency with his final statements.
JShepppp wrote...
[b]7. Even if the Catalyst's logic is right, it's a numbers-based approach that really doesn't appreciate the miracle of organic life (which they're apparently trying to protect), I still don't like him. He was poorly introduced, annoying, confusing, and I especially don't like that I couldn't talk back or ask him more questions. I agree with you here. The Catalyst wrongly assumes that the threat of impending death and intergalactic annihilation implies Shepard doesn't want dialogue options for a friendly chat. For my sarcastic take on ME3's plot holes, see this. Yes, I'm bumping my own thread again.
This has nothing to do with the Catalyst’s logic at all. It has to do with its method of determining its value judgments. I would argue that many people think in a similar manner (the numbers approach). I teach logic and ethics to college students and I can say in my experience many people sympathize with Utilitarian ethics. This is a utilitarian calculation. Those who agree with the “miracle” of human life would be Kantians or Divine Command Theorists. This is not a question for logic, but for value theory and ethics.
JShepppp wrote...
I'm interested to hear others' thoughts though on these issues. It'd help if you could indicate the number of the argument when you address it so this may be able to flow smoothly.
This is my reply. I do not think that you have a very strong case to back up the Catalyst’s arguments. I wrote this rather quickly and I did not examine all of the possible replies that could be made to my response (as I typically do when making philosophical arguments); however, I believe at the basic level there is no legitimate defense of the Catalyst’s logic. Remember deductive validity requires necessity and logical entailment of the conclusion if the premises are true. Beyond that soundness checks the truth of the premises. I drifted a bit into soundness because that was how your original post was written. Again, there is no logical entailment of the Catalyst’s conclusion based on the premises we have available to us.
Modifié par Tarothlock, 30 mars 2012 - 03:17 .
#329
Posté 30 mars 2012 - 03:13
thepimpto
-
- Members
- 148 messages
The whole "synthetics v. organics" crutch that the ending leans on is a fallacy. Not because of the possible Geth-Quarian reconciliation, or EDI, but rather that should synthetics annihilate all organic life in the galaxy, organic life will continue regardless.
New stars will be born birthing new planets with the potential for birthing new life. Unless the synthetics are constantly screening the galaxy for signs of life, which after their first purge more than likely they hit a technological singularity and would no longer view organic life with any significance, they will not destroy organic life. And if the synthetics are truly intelligent they would realize that the extermination of organic life is impossible as organic life is inevitable. Holy possible deeper meaning behind Sovereign's speech in ME1, Batman!
The current endings' answer only creates a plethora of more problems. If the "synthetic v. organic" crutch IS true, then ultimately argument is cyclical in nature. Organics create synthetics, synthetics destroy organics, organics keep recurring, synthetics create path for organic to grow, organics divert from path, organics destroy synthetics, organics create synthetics... Do you get where I'm going with this?
The Reapers are ultimately insignificant, the entire premise of the game(s), destroying the Reapers, is rendered insignificant, because after we destroy them, eventually we will recreate them, only to destroy and recreate them again.
The only "logic" I can see is the Catalyst relying on self-preservation against a cycle greater than the one he was supposedly the architect of.
New stars will be born birthing new planets with the potential for birthing new life. Unless the synthetics are constantly screening the galaxy for signs of life, which after their first purge more than likely they hit a technological singularity and would no longer view organic life with any significance, they will not destroy organic life. And if the synthetics are truly intelligent they would realize that the extermination of organic life is impossible as organic life is inevitable. Holy possible deeper meaning behind Sovereign's speech in ME1, Batman!
The current endings' answer only creates a plethora of more problems. If the "synthetic v. organic" crutch IS true, then ultimately argument is cyclical in nature. Organics create synthetics, synthetics destroy organics, organics keep recurring, synthetics create path for organic to grow, organics divert from path, organics destroy synthetics, organics create synthetics... Do you get where I'm going with this?
The Reapers are ultimately insignificant, the entire premise of the game(s), destroying the Reapers, is rendered insignificant, because after we destroy them, eventually we will recreate them, only to destroy and recreate them again.
The only "logic" I can see is the Catalyst relying on self-preservation against a cycle greater than the one he was supposedly the architect of.
#330
Posté 30 mars 2012 - 03:23
JShepppp
-
- Members
- 1 607 messages
Tarothlock wrote...
I removed the quote here because it's kind of long, but I do very much value the input you've given and am grateful that you took the time to think it and write it out fully, as some others have done on this forum. Thank you very much for your input; your politeness is very welcome as well.
As I said in my original unedited post, I didn't think I was completely right. I doubted people wouldn't find reasons to disagree with me. I also welcomed, and still do, criticism. Friendly criticism is very healthy.
If you have the time, please check my updates to my original post. I tried to answer what I felt were the main points of discontent in the forum. Some points I argued against. Some I conceded. Some, I had never heard of, and I welcomed them. I hope you can find some of your disagreements there and see my overall response. Cheers.
#331
Posté 30 mars 2012 - 03:45
Tarothlock
-
- Members
- 13 messages
Just a quick reply to your edited OP.
It is still a question of fact, belief, logic, and ethical reasoning. Clearly the Catalyst is using utilitarian reasoning to determine its ethical code (that is if you grant the Catalyst and other synthetics "personhood," which the game clearly does in its 3rd installment). In the case of the Catalyst thinking it is doing the right thing (in the moral sense) is really a question of normative and non-normative facts. Normative facts are those that pertain to the moral nature of the decision and the non-normative facts are the everyday worldly facts (to put it very simply).
We currently do not have access to all of the non-normative facts. Until we do we cannot even begin to assess the correctness of the normative facts and the resulting ethical decision. As for me, this is a huge problem I have with the ending (not to mention many others). Even giving the Catalyst the benefit of the doubt on most of its claims it still does not follow that he is making a logically valid argument for the reasons I mentioned above. There are way too many premises that are left out of his argument before we can accept its validity. Even if we obtain this, there is still a question of soundness (the premises being actually true) which we cannot answer at this time.
BTW excellent job with this post. I don't often post on forums due to flaming, so it has been nice to engage in a civil discussion for once.
It is still a question of fact, belief, logic, and ethical reasoning. Clearly the Catalyst is using utilitarian reasoning to determine its ethical code (that is if you grant the Catalyst and other synthetics "personhood," which the game clearly does in its 3rd installment). In the case of the Catalyst thinking it is doing the right thing (in the moral sense) is really a question of normative and non-normative facts. Normative facts are those that pertain to the moral nature of the decision and the non-normative facts are the everyday worldly facts (to put it very simply).
We currently do not have access to all of the non-normative facts. Until we do we cannot even begin to assess the correctness of the normative facts and the resulting ethical decision. As for me, this is a huge problem I have with the ending (not to mention many others). Even giving the Catalyst the benefit of the doubt on most of its claims it still does not follow that he is making a logically valid argument for the reasons I mentioned above. There are way too many premises that are left out of his argument before we can accept its validity. Even if we obtain this, there is still a question of soundness (the premises being actually true) which we cannot answer at this time.
BTW excellent job with this post. I don't often post on forums due to flaming, so it has been nice to engage in a civil discussion for once.
#332
Posté 30 mars 2012 - 03:48
CronoDragoon
-
- Members
- 10 413 messages
Tarothlock wrote...
Just a quick reply to your edited OP.
It is still a question of fact, belief, logic, and ethical reasoning. Clearly the Catalyst is using utilitarian reasoning to determine its ethical code (that is if you grant the Catalyst and other synthetics "personhood," which the game clearly does in its 3rd installment). In the case of the Catalyst thinking it is doing the right thing (in the moral sense) is really a question of normative and non-normative facts. Normative facts are those that pertain to the moral nature of the decision and the non-normative facts are the everyday worldly facts (to put it very simply).
We currently do not have access to all of the non-normative facts. Until we do we cannot even begin to assess the correctness of the normative facts and the resulting ethical decision. As for me, this is a huge problem I have with the ending (not to mention many others). Even giving the Catalyst the benefit of the doubt on most of its claims it still does not follow that he is making a logically valid argument for the reasons I mentioned above. There are way too many premises that are left out of his argument before we can accept its validity. Even if we obtain this, there is still a question of soundness (the premises being actually true) which we cannot answer at this time.
BTW excellent job with this post. I don't often post on forums due to flaming, so it has been nice to engage in a civil discussion for once.
Nitpicky thing from philosophy guy: utilitarian reasoning deals with maximizing happiness specifically; I think you meant consequentialist?
#333
Posté 30 mars 2012 - 04:48
Tarothlock
-
- Members
- 13 messages
CronoDragoon wrote...
Nitpicky thing from philosophy guy: utilitarian reasoning deals with maximizing happiness specifically; I think you meant consequentialist?
If we are to be nitpicky, happiness is Hedonistic Consequentialism. Yes, consequentism would be the proper term, but it is far less "household" friendly. Most intro students are taught utilitarianism (assuming we limit it to Bentham), therefore I default to that term when I am speaking to the non-philosopher person.
#334
Posté 30 mars 2012 - 05:14
JShepppp
-
- Members
- 1 607 messages
Tarothlock wrote...
Just a quick reply to your edited OP.
It is still a question of fact, belief, logic, and ethical reasoning. Clearly the Catalyst is using utilitarian reasoning to determine its ethical code (that is if you grant the Catalyst and other synthetics "personhood," which the game clearly does in its 3rd installment). In the case of the Catalyst thinking it is doing the right thing (in the moral sense) is really a question of normative and non-normative facts. Normative facts are those that pertain to the moral nature of the decision and the non-normative facts are the everyday worldly facts (to put it very simply).
We currently do not have access to all of the non-normative facts. Until we do we cannot even begin to assess the correctness of the normative facts and the resulting ethical decision. As for me, this is a huge problem I have with the ending (not to mention many others). Even giving the Catalyst the benefit of the doubt on most of its claims it still does not follow that he is making a logically valid argument for the reasons I mentioned above. There are way too many premises that are left out of his argument before we can accept its validity. Even if we obtain this, there is still a question of soundness (the premises being actually true) which we cannot answer at this time.
BTW excellent job with this post. I don't often post on forums due to flaming, so it has been nice to engage in a civil discussion for once.
Added stuff to the Edit Edit part (green) about normative stuff. Good idea to bring out the distinction between the two. I also updated the part with something talking about how we really don't have enough data so arguments may be moot lol. And yes, it has been nice to engage in some civil discussion.
#335
Posté 30 mars 2012 - 05:28
InsaneAzrael
-
- Members
- 441 messages
JShepppp wrote...
14. Logic is pointless to justify the Catalyst's motives/actions as we must do so by facts. The available facts are too few to extrapolate to hundreds of millions of years of organic life, let alone to all life in general. This means that they can't support the Catalyst's motives but nor can they disprove the motives because having one (or two) cycles' information is pointless compared to thousands/millions. Therefore, I use the Catalyst's logic/dialogue more.
Well, we cannot actually be clear on what or how much information the Catalyst actually has available.
I understand your assumption that it actually has ready information for the myriad of cycles, but there may be a few problems with this assumption.
1. The catalyst may not actually possess the information of ALL the cycles.
2. The catalyst may not possess the processing capacity to decipher, translate and colate data from citadel input.
3. The catalyst, being part-crucible, part-citadel may not have existed since its initial inception/disconnect (assuming of course it had been previously connected)
4. (Assuming reapers input the data) The catalyst may be receiving ill-informed interpretation of data from reapers.
An important note:
As far as the conjecture at present is playing out, it is worth noting (again) that this new plot device (the catalyst) may never have actually been operational prior to this cycle.
It may be literally a pre-programmed VI that will determinately be executing a pre-recorded message translated from the language accessed via the present core database of the citadel.
(Magically everyone speaks the native language of the player).
Just a few nitpicking points you could possibly consider.
Another note: Intervention on the part of the reapers to actually interfere with the probability of synthetic genocide.
(A bit tangential) Soverign actively "indoctrinate" some Geth forces to invade and assault organic space in ME1. Prior to this, the geth had been acting in self-defence and self-preservation. It took a reaper to actually initiate open war with organics.
Modifié par InsaneAzrael, 02 avril 2012 - 02:20 .
#336
Posté 30 mars 2012 - 05:31
Wabajakka
-
- Members
- 1 244 messages
WeAreLegionWTF wrote...
When you have to work this hard just to convince yourself something is wrong.
here, this is for trying...
Too true, too true.
#337
Posté 30 mars 2012 - 06:34
Jostle
-
- Members
- 168 messages
I'd like to reiterate my point that, regardless of whether the OPs explanations hold water (very well-written and civil, kudos OP), there is a huge problem with the Catalyst's logic: it gives Shepard three choices to decide the outcome of the war, two of which are directly counter-indicative to its described goal, solution, and very purpose. This leads me to conclude that the Catalyst must be untrustworthy. Why would it give you the option to destroy or control the reapers? For that matter, why would it bring you to its platform at all?
On pondering this conundrum, I decided that either the Catalyst is dishonest (i.e. the crucible is the very thing reapers were trying to prevent organic life from creating and they're not affiliated, which comes with its own massive set of problems and questions), or the Catalyst realizes that organics are about to win the war and uses Shepard's vulnerability to weaken organics in a truly crippling way by devastating the mass relays (rebuilding isn't an issue for the reapers because time isnot an issue; there could still be reapers off in dark space that would be unaffected by the blast).
This is all, of course, assuming you take the ending at face value and not dive into IT waters. It also requires a massive amount of speculation. However, I contest that if what was stated by the OP about the Catalyst is true, there is no way it would allow Shepard to make the decision it allowed him/her to make.
On pondering this conundrum, I decided that either the Catalyst is dishonest (i.e. the crucible is the very thing reapers were trying to prevent organic life from creating and they're not affiliated, which comes with its own massive set of problems and questions), or the Catalyst realizes that organics are about to win the war and uses Shepard's vulnerability to weaken organics in a truly crippling way by devastating the mass relays (rebuilding isn't an issue for the reapers because time isnot an issue; there could still be reapers off in dark space that would be unaffected by the blast).
This is all, of course, assuming you take the ending at face value and not dive into IT waters. It also requires a massive amount of speculation. However, I contest that if what was stated by the OP about the Catalyst is true, there is no way it would allow Shepard to make the decision it allowed him/her to make.
#338
Posté 30 mars 2012 - 03:03
JShepppp
-
- Members
- 1 607 messages
Jostle wrote...
I'd like to reiterate my point that, regardless of whether the OPs explanations hold water (very well-written and civil, kudos OP), there is a huge problem with the Catalyst's logic: it gives Shepard three choices to decide the outcome of the war, two of which are directly counter-indicative to its described goal, solution, and very purpose. This leads me to conclude that the Catalyst must be untrustworthy. Why would it give you the option to destroy or control the reapers? For that matter, why would it bring you to its platform at all?
On pondering this conundrum, I decided that either the Catalyst is dishonest (i.e. the crucible is the very thing reapers were trying to prevent organic life from creating and they're not affiliated, which comes with its own massive set of problems and questions), or the Catalyst realizes that organics are about to win the war and uses Shepard's vulnerability to weaken organics in a truly crippling way by devastating the mass relays (rebuilding isn't an issue for the reapers because time isnot an issue; there could still be reapers off in dark space that would be unaffected by the blast).
This is all, of course, assuming you take the ending at face value and not dive into IT waters. It also requires a massive amount of speculation. However, I contest that if what was stated by the OP about the Catalyst is true, there is no way it would allow Shepard to make the decision it allowed him/her to make.
Never thought of that. That's a good point. The Catalyst says Shepard's presence means its solution won't work anymore, and it also says that it can't change its own directive to any of the possibilities the Crucible has - Shep must do it. Still, these two things are not explained more fully (why are things that way? didn't the Catalyst help Shep get this far? etc.), so the issue is still very much confusing and open. Updated OP. Thanks.
#339
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 12:17
JShepppp
-
- Members
- 1 607 messages
Bumping because a major update (in green) was made to the OP based on what I found in another thread.
#340
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 12:45
KingZayd
-
- Members
- 5 344 messages
JShepppp wrote...
CONCLUSION: Since the singularity is unavoidable, and there is a nonzero probability for war after the singularity, and sincethe unwinnable war will result in the end of organics, it is inevitable that organics will evolve to a point where their synthetics will kill them.
probabilty organics evolve to point where synthetics kill them= probability of singularity (apparently unavoidable, though we have no real reason to accept this, probability=1) * probability of war after singularity (nonzero, can agree <1 as you're not claiming it's inevitable * probability singularity wins war (1) = 1*1*<1=(non zero, <1) therefore it is not inevitable.
#341
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 01:38
JShepppp
-
- Members
- 1 607 messages
KingZayd wrote...
JShepppp wrote...
CONCLUSION: Since the singularity is unavoidable, and there is a nonzero probability for war after the singularity, and sincethe unwinnable war will result in the end of organics, it is inevitable that organics will evolve to a point where their synthetics will kill them.
probabilty organics evolve to point where synthetics kill them= probability of singularity (apparently unavoidable, though we have no real reason to accept this, probability=1) * probability of war after singularity (nonzero, can agree <1 as you're not claiming it's inevitable * probability singularity wins war (1) = 1*1*<1=(non zero, <1) therefore it is not inevitable.
You are right to question the assumption that a technological singularity is inevitable. It is an assumption the Catalyst makes to base all its following assumptions on; if there is any flaw that can expose it, it is this.
However, I do not think the assumption that the probability of getting wiped out by synthetics is nonzero but less than 1 (0<p<1) is something that refutes the Catalyst's claim of inevitability - please let me explain. With a nonzero probability, given enough time, all possibilities will occur. This means that, given enough time, organics will be wiped out.
The only way in the long run (time to infinity) that organics won't get wiped out is to make the probability of synthetics winning the war absolutely zero. This is impossible if the technological singularity occurs. Note that the probability of war or peace is irrelevant unless either is zero (indicating the other is one) because a nonzero probability assumes that in enough time all outcomes will be realized.
#342
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 01:48
JShepppp
-
- Members
- 1 607 messages
I think it'd be great if people had more things to say about this.
Modifié par JShepppp, 02 avril 2012 - 02:16 .
#343
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 02:22
InsaneAzrael
-
- Members
- 441 messages
JShepppp wrote...
I think it'd be great if people had more things to say about this.
Another note: Intervention on the part of the reapers to actually interfere with the probability of synthetic genocide.
(A
bit tangential) Soverign actively "indoctrinate" some Geth forces to
invade and assault organic space in ME1. Prior to this, the geth had
been acting in self-defence and self-preservation. It took a reaper to
actually initiate open war with organics.
#344
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 02:32
oothal
-
- Members
- 32 messages
I am sure that the person who thought up this plot twist at the end didn't spend nearly this much time thinking it through as this post has.
This reminds me of my college English Lit. class where we spent several days analyzing every line of some stupid poem written ages ago. My professor droned on and on about the meaning of this and that.
Where I could just imagine the poet saying to themselves. "Hey these words rhyme, great, now what words can I find to make the next passage rhyme too?"
Had to edit to just make sence of it myself. lol I am certainly one of the older gamers on here.
This reminds me of my college English Lit. class where we spent several days analyzing every line of some stupid poem written ages ago. My professor droned on and on about the meaning of this and that.
Where I could just imagine the poet saying to themselves. "Hey these words rhyme, great, now what words can I find to make the next passage rhyme too?"
Had to edit to just make sence of it myself. lol I am certainly one of the older gamers on here.
Modifié par oothal, 02 avril 2012 - 02:48 .
#345
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 02:37
Jarys
-
- Members
- 217 messages
The concept behind a tech vs organic singularity is that most people assume that there will be no such thing as a true hybrid. I have a feeling that there will be implant enhancements long before there will be true AI. A human being with the capabilities of a computer and the compassion and emotional experience of a synthetic is far from plain 'ol human.
#346
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 02:40
InsaneAzrael
-
- Members
- 441 messages
Jarys wrote...
The concept behind a tech vs organic singularity is that most people assume that there will be no such thing as a true hybrid. I have a feeling that there will be implant enhancements long before there will be true AI. A human being with the capabilities of a computer and the compassion and emotional experience of a synthetic is far from plain 'ol human.
For example, the omni-tool. A holographic emitter common to all space-faring races. Transmitting a hologramatic interface and capable of monitoring life-signs etc. It is essential to the degree of being needed to open doors.
#347
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 02:50
Shalewind
-
- Members
- 117 messages
OP, I think you have made an extremely well-reasoned and balanced approach to the Catalysts logical path. I respectfully disagree and ask you to consider some points.
1) I don’t think you can assume a technological singularity is an inevitability. While the hypothesis states a high likelihood given what we know, it’s by no means guaranteed or necessarily possible given what we know. If the Catalyst has “higher knowledge” that proves its inevitability, that’s fine, but it can’t be used to argue the point as we don’t know the logic begin it.
2) I think the ability of “organic” life to “catch up” or compete depends upon the amount of biological and technological adaptations that are developed. I think it’s entirely feasible that mind/machine interfaces allow a primarily organic mind to access levels of computation and thought beyond what is possible in normal biological/chemical media. As this is a possibility I believe it invalidates the premise statement.
3) Agreed.
4) Not necessarily – we have the capacity to wipe ourselves out certainly.
5) I don’t think it’s a fair statement, given my comments on statement 2. It’s also relevant to mention that some synthetic life might very well wish to preserve organic life – an entity fully capable of countering other synthetic entities even if my premise two is incorrect. The existence of such a force could invalid the premise as well.
6) I think this is a fair statement – but not a certainty.
7) Given my hypothesizes above, I believe the “over time” argument here is flawed. While it’s certainly a possibility – it is not a certainty. And I don’t believe you can make an infinite time argument given the life scale of stars and the galaxy.
8) See statement one, I disagree that it is an inevitability.
I see the core of your argument and I agree it is convincing, but as the core is set in points one and two and I believe these are up for debate – the concept of certainty cannot be logically applied.
Also, a solution that mitigates a second singularity by constantly evolving your own synthetic consciousness to an original singularity could certainly counter the newly emergent intelligence in nearly every scenario I’d think. If the first one is protective – as is obviously the case or there wouldn’t be a “problem” to begin with – I fail to see why other solutions that don’t involve genocide were not possible.
1) I don’t think you can assume a technological singularity is an inevitability. While the hypothesis states a high likelihood given what we know, it’s by no means guaranteed or necessarily possible given what we know. If the Catalyst has “higher knowledge” that proves its inevitability, that’s fine, but it can’t be used to argue the point as we don’t know the logic begin it.
2) I think the ability of “organic” life to “catch up” or compete depends upon the amount of biological and technological adaptations that are developed. I think it’s entirely feasible that mind/machine interfaces allow a primarily organic mind to access levels of computation and thought beyond what is possible in normal biological/chemical media. As this is a possibility I believe it invalidates the premise statement.
3) Agreed.
4) Not necessarily – we have the capacity to wipe ourselves out certainly.
5) I don’t think it’s a fair statement, given my comments on statement 2. It’s also relevant to mention that some synthetic life might very well wish to preserve organic life – an entity fully capable of countering other synthetic entities even if my premise two is incorrect. The existence of such a force could invalid the premise as well.
6) I think this is a fair statement – but not a certainty.
7) Given my hypothesizes above, I believe the “over time” argument here is flawed. While it’s certainly a possibility – it is not a certainty. And I don’t believe you can make an infinite time argument given the life scale of stars and the galaxy.
8) See statement one, I disagree that it is an inevitability.
I see the core of your argument and I agree it is convincing, but as the core is set in points one and two and I believe these are up for debate – the concept of certainty cannot be logically applied.
Also, a solution that mitigates a second singularity by constantly evolving your own synthetic consciousness to an original singularity could certainly counter the newly emergent intelligence in nearly every scenario I’d think. If the first one is protective – as is obviously the case or there wouldn’t be a “problem” to begin with – I fail to see why other solutions that don’t involve genocide were not possible.
#348
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 03:03
thefallen2far
-
- Members
- 563 messages
To the OP,
So you're saying the Reapers are religious fanatics that believe in an "end of days" scenario based on their own logic apart from having any actual proof like Christians with the Rapture. And thee cause mass genocide of intelligent species for the purpose of preserving any of them from creating an AI that will wipe out all organic life [for whatever reason]. I can see that.
If you put Schrodinger's box into a damaged program, it might come to believe in Zombie cats and wipe out all cats to prevent a zombie apocalypse. They're crazy machines.
Endin still sucked, though.
So you're saying the Reapers are religious fanatics that believe in an "end of days" scenario based on their own logic apart from having any actual proof like Christians with the Rapture. And thee cause mass genocide of intelligent species for the purpose of preserving any of them from creating an AI that will wipe out all organic life [for whatever reason]. I can see that.
If you put Schrodinger's box into a damaged program, it might come to believe in Zombie cats and wipe out all cats to prevent a zombie apocalypse. They're crazy machines.
Endin still sucked, though.
Modifié par thefallen2far, 02 avril 2012 - 02:00 .
#349
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 04:12
Joccaren
-
- Members
- 1 130 messages
Point one of the edit, thank you for acknowledging that. Sadly, We must assume that what is in the game is what was ultimately meant. If the Catalyst's reasons were taken away, they were taken away. In the game, those two points do not exist. 'Lots of Speculation', but they were removed, and thus cannot be taken into account for what the Catalyst is.
In addition, it is perfectly possible to extrapolate to cover all cycles. Whilst 2/20,000 may be statistically insignificant, remember the Prothean VI on Thessia. It speaks of mini cycles repeating in all cycles, albeit with different manifestations. Everything that has happened in the last two cycles, by the writers logic, has happened in all previous cycles, but with slight variations on exactly how it happened. It is what was meant to be conveyed about the universe - it is even conveyed that the Catalyst controls this, and somehow causes all these mini cycles to happen.
In addition, it is perfectly possible to extrapolate to cover all cycles. Whilst 2/20,000 may be statistically insignificant, remember the Prothean VI on Thessia. It speaks of mini cycles repeating in all cycles, albeit with different manifestations. Everything that has happened in the last two cycles, by the writers logic, has happened in all previous cycles, but with slight variations on exactly how it happened. It is what was meant to be conveyed about the universe - it is even conveyed that the Catalyst controls this, and somehow causes all these mini cycles to happen.
#350
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 04:44
Balek-Vriege
-
- Members
- 1 216 messages
First I want to thank the OP for making this thread. For about 10 minutes the other day I thought of making something like this thread, since i'm utterly tired of explaining the endings, their meaning and why some things actually do work in the ending (but obviously based off the huge anti ending response, weren't done well in execution). In the end I just didn't care enough and wouldn't have put a tenth of the effort into it or replying.
I would just like to add and support that objections to the Catalyst's logic on moral or ethical grounds alone, doesn't make it wrong. It's an AI (or possibly a VI) with a clear function and not an entity of empathy or justice. When killing isn't an issue and the preservation of organic life, in the face of permanent extinction by synthetics is, everything the Reapers do actually makes sense. I think it's more of an issue that players don't want to agree with it on moral grounds (for those who hold this opinion).
Which is why the Destroy ending exists.
This is actually touched on by Javik in game when I think he talks about a race that tried to make themselves transorganic with cybernetic implants (it was a response to a Shepard comment about a new husk creature or the Salarians, can't remember). The implants became self aware, decided the organic hosts were weak and unnecessary and then took control of them. The interfaces went on to twist them into hedious creatures which went on to attack and wipe out the rest of the race.
I would just like to add and support that objections to the Catalyst's logic on moral or ethical grounds alone, doesn't make it wrong. It's an AI (or possibly a VI) with a clear function and not an entity of empathy or justice. When killing isn't an issue and the preservation of organic life, in the face of permanent extinction by synthetics is, everything the Reapers do actually makes sense. I think it's more of an issue that players don't want to agree with it on moral grounds (for those who hold this opinion).
Which is why the Destroy ending exists.
Shalewind wrote...
2) I think the ability of “organic” life to “catch up” or compete depends upon the amount of biological and technological adaptations that are developed. I think it’s entirely feasible that mind/machine interfaces allow a primarily organic mind to access levels of computation and thought beyond what is possible in normal biological/chemical media. As this is a possibility I believe it invalidates the premise statement.
This is actually touched on by Javik in game when I think he talks about a race that tried to make themselves transorganic with cybernetic implants (it was a response to a Shepard comment about a new husk creature or the Salarians, can't remember). The implants became self aware, decided the organic hosts were weak and unnecessary and then took control of them. The interfaces went on to twist them into hedious creatures which went on to attack and wipe out the rest of the race.
Modifié par Balek-Vriege, 02 avril 2012 - 04:47 .
