All right you guys, I know I said I'll update the OP (both to those in the thread and those who sent me BSN messages) but I'm sorry I was busy (lol aren't we all) and it will take another day. I was very happy to see a lot of new responses.
Going through them quickly,
a lot of things were in my OP but maybe people didn't read them because they TL;DR-ed it. The brevity in my responses is for the sake of stopping an enormous post and does not indicate dismissiveness or irritation. This post will address all posts between my previous post (Page 17 of the thread) and this current post.
Catalyst Logic Point = Assumptions I said the Catalyst makes; there are 8.
OP Point = Points I made in the OP in response to "common disagreements" (the stuff with exclamation marks); there are 7.
Counter-Point = Points that others brought up in the forums that I added to the OP; there are 21.
For some people I will simply refer them to the relevant points above.
@SRX: I agree. It was hinted here and there, probably not well, but it was not entirely unexpected. It was more like a part of the organics vs synthetics theme that was unexplored and that itself was unexpected; but synthetics overtaking organics itself is not a new theme. Sorry I didn't mean to put you on the spot lol, I was just curious.
@filetemo: Interesting thought about self-preservation. As for not knowing for sure how it would treat organic life, this is true and is a fundamental aspect of the singularity. The Catalyst just seems to get around this though by using probabilities and assuming they will be realized given enough time.
@LordJeyl: I was never one to believe that the Catalyst's form influenced how I interpreted its thoughts. Its form is a plot device/hole separate from its logic, I believe.
@xztr: Perhaps this was a joke of some kind. If not, I apologize for not understanding the point.
@ArchLord James: Please see my Counter-Point #3.
@FabricatedWookie: Lol yes, but the mental work of maintaining it is far more
It was poorly explained though, so that may be why...this whole idea of lots of speculation from everyone certainly seems to be coming true.
@Cheopz: Thank you for the bumps and keeping the forum alive with answering other posts as well.
@fredward55: Please see my OP Point #3.
@Nitsugalego: I'm curious as to how the presence of the "kid" itself affects the logic of the Catalyst's thinking the writers were trying to present.
@ReggarBlane: As I said, I agree the Catalyst is wrong. If the Catalyst was right, there'd be no real story. This was about trying to understand the Catalyst better. Saying the Catalyst is wrong by citing arguments it's not really making or by oversimplifying its assertions can lead to being right for the wrong reasons, and this thread is also looking to see if we can be right for the right reasons, so to speak.
@TeffexPope: The singularity is defined by self-evolved abilities and stuff like that. I think technology level is definitely related, but nothing has to say this is the case. Perhaps this is why Sovereign stated "you evolve along the paths we desire" or something like that because they only know how to measure how "close" to the singularity you are if you're along their technological path. Maybe non-mass-relay-technologies reach the singularity at different points, or maybe not even at all. Who knows. If the latter is the case, then the Catalyst's assertion is at worst wrong or at best an oversimplification that is unwilling to make risks.
@Warrior Craess: Please see Counter-Point 5.
@antique_nova: Very interesting. This clearly shows the normative differences between the Catalyst and us, hence framing our perceptions of its perceived problems and cost/benefit analyses very differently.
@Bloodhound66: Please see OP Point 7 and Counter-Point 10. I do agree as I stated elsewhere in the OP that it was poorly written. However, I also wrote in the OP that the ending choices reflect how you disagree/agree with the Catalyst in my opinion - Red = Disagree, Blue = Unsure, Green = Agree. I do agree that we should have had actual dialogue options though, even if the Catalyst just refuted them anyways. Then we'd know why and not have to speculate.
@Ticonderoga117: True, butplease remember this is in relevance to AIs. I was using the Catalyst's leaked script to discuss this (pros/cons of leaked script use: Please see Counter-Point 1). The Catalyst's own definition of a singularity is that AIs will overtake the organics, implying that it views it entirely as a situation based on the separation of organics/synthetics. Its synthesis solution solidifies that this is its initial assumption. Maybe this was poor writing or was a liberty taken for the definition of tech singularity in ME. Will bring this up in the OP though.
@Byronic-Knight: Lol yeah it was discussed - Counter Point 16. As for bad writing, I agree (OP Point 7 and Counter-Point 10). Still, great comparison to Deus Ex. Indeed, ME seemed to try to do Deus Ex themes in the end lol.
@nhk3: As discussed in Counter-Point 3, I believe the Geth/Quarian thing can lend credence to the Catalyst. As for how much they are truly "preserved", that is indeed up for debate, and most people (including myself) believe that such preservation is nonsense or worthless and that current existence is definitely preferable lol. But the Catalyst's normative views differ, of course. As for not reaching the singularity, it could be that the Catalyst's/Reapers' creators deliberately shackled them or made them VIs to stop it because it'd be kind of hypocritical if their solution to the problem created the problem.
@Zine2: Please see Counter-Point 8. Also, you are well within your rights to say it is a ludicrous idea. Then you can disagree and pick Destroy. Also, remember that this is science fiction. They can talk about anything they want no matter how unrealistic or "paranoid" so long as they spin it properly. As per my OP Point 7 and Counter-Point 10, I do believe they executed it poorly. You are also indirectly kind of referencing my Counter-Point 5 about circular reasoning, so please check that out too. You have posted the "paranoid" argument repeatedly in this thread but I don't know if people responded to it directly. The Catalyst is indeed a prime suspect of circular reasoning that leads to a flaw in its logic. Again, this thread is about understanding the Catalyst. You can say all you want that it's stupid so feel free. It's your choice and interpretation. The singularity argument is similar to life after death, resurrection, etc. in the sense that by its very nature it cannot be proved/disproved until it passes. But for the nature of science fiction, liberties can be taken, no matter how ludicrious, if it is well explained.
Again, I apologize if some of this seems blunt or abrupt. I'm not trying to be rude but practical in replying to everyone without a garangutan post. I will update the OP sometime soon and it will be a relatively big update. Sorry for the delay.
Modifié par JShepppp, 11 avril 2012 - 05:51 .
Retour en haut
this is very speculative but that doesn't mean it couldn't be... imo organics are always more or less "power-hungry" so it wouldn't be a surprise if the one(s) who were there chose to control and this leads to my post in the thread linked above:
