In Exile wrote...
JShepppp wrote...
That's an interesting point that the Reapers' normative perspectives are tied into their positive conclusions. But remember the Catalyst doesn't think it's doing genocide. It also believes in upholding the cycle above all else.
That's not my point. My point is that you need address the moral justification (and provide a defence) if you want to argue that the Cataylyst is not internally inconsistent.
To get you started (for example) the Catalyst ascribes some non-zero value to organic life, and pressuposes that organic life >> synthetic life, for reasons not entirely clear. You have to start from that, factor in the incredible genocide of the Reapers (which another thread details numerically) and then outline why, from the Catalyst's starting premises, that's the better option, morally speaking.
Because, fundamentally, the argument that the Catalyst is making is a moral argument (specifically, consequentialist).
All right. Let me try to put it from what I think is the Catalyst's point of view. To avoid large numbers (and also because I just don't know them) I'm going to use variables.
First off, the baseline assumption is that organics are the ones that need to be "saved"and that synthetics aren't worth it because that's how the Catalyst is programmed by its creators (I dunno why else, possible fallacy, but we're given zero info).
EDIT: The Catalyst really should consider itself "successful"if even 1 organic is saved. But the following math doesn't talk about absolutes but more about relatives where it'll be discussed if it saves more than it kills, following its harsh logic.I apologize beforehand for the confusing variables. I'm going to just assume the numbers are the same across every cycle on average (if that's not valid, then I'm just not capable of doing the complex math here required on BSN).
Let's assume that every cycle, there are C number of organics. Out of these organics, H will be harvested and kept alive (their minds will be saved and bodies discarded, Catalyst's point of view) while K will be killed. There are N cycles.
C = H + K. Also, over the cycles, NC = NH + NK. The Catalyst has killed NK organics, which will be less than NC, because some organics, NH, have been harvested.
Let's also introduce L, the "lesser-evolved"organics. These are organics not yet ready for harvesting. Over time, they get added to the C category. So now let's introduce another variable P, the overall population of all organics over a period "t" (bacteria take time to form after all). Fix it for a specific period "t".
P = L + C --> P = L + H + K.
Let's take this in two different ways. First, let's say that harvesting does count as killing. Then we basically need to see that
L > C
for any given cycle.
This is probably true given the vast amount of unexplored galaxy (99% unexplored, must hold life that is developing, given that it happened in past cycles too, at this given moment) versus the amount the Reapers are harvesting (1% explored). In this case, the Catalyst could view itself as right because "killing"the C population "saves"the L population; if it allowed the C population to fully advance, then the C would create synthetics that would wipe out the entire P.
L > C will be taken as "fact" from here; that is, the non-evolved life outnumbers the evolved life in the galaxy. You can dispute that but the evidence/reasoning I think kind of indicates otherwise.
But let's say that harvesting counts as saving.
If the Catalyst does not "save"the C population, then not only will C get wiped out, but so will L (by its logic). So basically, the following must hold for it to be saving organics within its own paradigm:
L + H > K, or L > K - H,
This may not be immediately apparent or provable. We could argue this away by slapping on infinity to the equation or something maybe (infinite view of time) but we can look elsewhere. Let's look back above. Irregardless of whether or not harvesting is saving, if L > C, the Catalyst is justified within its own paradigm. That is, if L is that big, then the Catalyst is on its own reasonable.
How does C compare to (K-H)? Remember C = K + H. Obviously K + H >/ K - H (that is, greater than or equal to) given that K and H have to be non-negative (one COULD be zero while the other is equal to C; that is, everyone could die or everyone could be harvested).
So C > K - H. We know from above that L > C. So it follows that L > K - H.
Therefore, if harvesting counts as saving, then the Catalyst is still justified within its own paradigm.
EDIT: Sorry, it's late...I forgot to add in another thing. There is the assumption that the cycle will always continue such that the next L will be big enough to offset any losses in C;it is continuous.
You can integrate these over a period (or infinity, but then it may lose meaning) if you'd like. I don't know how helpful this is, but I hope it clears things up...maybe.
Then you're going to forever disagree and nothing can ever change your mind, which is fine, I suppose. Everybody disagrees with the Catalyst. This is to show where it's coming from.
No, you're wrong. As in, the form of reasoning you're using is not correct. This isn't related to the Catalyst.
If you want to argue that the Catalyst isinternally consistent, whatever. You're still wrong about that (see the above point on morality). But that's not the same as arguing that the Catalyst is right, or that the logic is right.
Let's agree to disagree, though I'm not sure where the disconnect is. I wrote at the top of the OP that the thread name is a misnomer - the Catalyst isn't 100% right. I never said it was right.
Dialogue, I would argue, has significance, especially when we're given very little information overall. By the same token we could disregard Sovereign's words and even the Catalyst's words because there's no evidence other than their dialogue. The Catalyst could just be a long-lost AI just derping around who never controlled the Reapers.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. There's nothing definitive in the dialogue. You can't take an ambiguous thing and argue that it's definitive.
Then we can throw out a lot of other "evidence" we have. The Catalyst doesn't control the Reapers then because all we have is its dialogue, for example. Maybe the Crucible never would've worked and was just the Catalyst's sadistic way of watching Shepard die believing he/she had won. I discussed this in the OP too that we have to find a line about where to give things more significance in the story than we normally would in real life, and that where we draw the line becomes opinionated. I respect your opinion here and humbly disagree.
But what happens in the next war? The synthetics weren't powerful enough now. The idea is that one day they will be too powerful, and that becomes a problem.
The catalyst is arguing that synthetics qua synthetics will genocide organics, unless the Reapers exist. But this is (1) unprovable unless we pressupose it (because it's an inductive premise); and (2) nonsensical.
The first thing you listed is true and is something I've noted. The second I respectfully disagree with because it could happen.
All possibilities will be realized given enough time. War and peace are both inevitable. Neither will be eternal, but they will occur.
That's false. The probability is almost equivalent to 1, but never actualy 1.
Obviously. But it's effectively 1. Even if it takes a time period longer than the age of the universe to be realized, it will eventually happen. And the Catalyst is unwilling to take that chance.
Modifié par JShepppp, 11 mai 2012 - 04:13 .
Retour en haut
