1057 réponses à ce sujet

[JShepppp]

So, based on a message I received (going to keep the person anonymous because they didn't post in the forum so I think they want that), there's a Codex entry that basically disqualifies Shepard as being synthetic because synthetic means self-awareness; that is, having mechanical body parts doesn't change Shepard's self-awareness. In the same way, those with other implants, the Quarians, etc. aren't going to be affected by Destroy either. Just those with synthetic parts that change their self-awareness...if that makes sense.

[PlumtheHunter]

 Incredible post. It's good to see that there are like minded people on the internet. It seems that our opinions on the Catalyst's logic are nearly identical.

[Taboo]

He's still wrong on one aspect.

But I'll never spoil the fun.

It involves the singularity.

[JShepppp]

PlumtheHunter wrote...

 Incredible post. It's good to see that there are like minded people on the internet. It seems that our opinions on the Catalyst's logic are nearly identical.

Thanks. And yup lol. I needed the idea of the singularity to personally make sense of the ending. I at least hope it is what they intended because it's one way (the other main one being IT) to explain what happened. 

[JShepppp]

Taboo-XX wrote...

He's still wrong on one aspect.

But I'll never spoil the fun.

It involves the singularity.

Then you could pick destroy, no problem. I'm guessing you mean that the singularity (a) won't happen or ( doesn't mean organics will be wiped out. There's no real response to (a) as the entire thing is more of a philosophical argument ("it hasn't happened yet" - can't be proven) and for ( that could be true but the Catalyst doesn't want to take the chance. Either way, destroy is the symbolic manifestation of disagreeing entirely with the Catalyst, imho. 

But if I haven't interpreted your intention properly, let me know. I'm always both happy and curious to hear other points of view.

[The Night Mammoth]

Singularities are inevitable.

In theory, but it's not what the serpent talks about because it doesn't mention it one or even imply the existence of one. Applying singularities to the problem it proposes is a ropey fan invention.

Assuming the singularity fits in with the conclusion though, is this specific version of it somehow different from the real-life theory we have? Does the occurrence of one immediately start the genocide or is it just the prerequisite for the genocide occurring later?

I will say though that proving anything like this requires proof. It presents no proof, whilst I have several examples of not only peaceful and friendly synthetics, but also of Reapers actively looking for synthetics to turn against their masters and use as tools, even upgrading them to perform genocide against hte organics they're supposed to be 'saving' (even though that is also achieved by killing everyone, but nevermind that). The serpent proposes the eradication of all organic life as a certainty. Well, if you hadn't noticed yet, no such thing has happened, could have happened, or could possibly have come close to happening once, let alone the multiple times required to form a solid conclusion. So from the perspective of Shepard standing there just hearing what it talks about, the deaths of trillions are justified based on a pretty ridiculous hypothesis with no backing provided. I can't necessarily disprove it completely, but nor can it be proven without this massive thread that even then only apparently proves it with the sketchy application of real-world theories that have little to zero basis within the lore. 

Given all that, given the extreme change of goal just imposed, given the evidence, or lack of it, I ignore its problem. The idea simply does not exist in Mass Effect. I shouldn't be given the time of day. I'd rather beleive it doens't exist in the fiction and keep the experience far more intact in terms of thematic meaning, what with all that for some reason irrelevant humanity-finding journey the Geth and EDI travel on, than give in to the baseless and moronic attempt to justify being given the final choice at the end. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 29 mai 2012 - 09:30 .

[Ieldra]

JShepppp wrote...
So, based on a message I received (going to keep the person anonymous because they didn't post in the forum so I think they want that), there's a Codex entry that basically disqualifies Shepard as being synthetic because synthetic means self-awareness; that is, having mechanical body parts doesn't change Shepard's self-awareness. In the same way, those with other implants, the Quarians, etc. aren't going to be affected by Destroy either. Just those with synthetic parts that change their self-awareness...if that makes sense.

I think this is correct, but...

...I don't think the writers made that distinction when they wrote the ending. "Even you are partly synthetic" is the Catalyst's claim. That would mean Shepard's consciousness has to rest partly in synthetic parts, which is contradicted by EDI when she says Shepard's brain is fully organic.

Hmph. How could the writers have f*cked up so many details? It boggles the mind.

[Xellith]

Its called oversight/incompetence/lazyness depending on your mood.

[nategator]

Excellent post OP.

I think the reason for the cut content is simple. The writers didn't want Synthesis to unequivocally be the "correct" answer as it would cheapen those who chose Destroy or Control, despite the writers own bias in favor of Synthesis. Instead, they wanted to raise the ambiguity level and equal out the cut-scenes to create a "good ending" regardless of the choice.

Sadly, this blew up in their faces. Without sufficient setup of the concepts behind Singularity or the star-child's motivations, the player was usually found thinking everything the star-child was saying was complete bull****.

The first rule of good storytelling: show don't tell. Exposition can work, just look at the codex, but it has to be accompanied by authority in the exposition. If the expositor is itself unreliable the exposition becomes nearly useless.

[Ieldra]

The Night Mammoth wrote...
Singularities are inevitable.

In theory, but it's not what the serpent talks about because it doesn't mention it one or even imply the existence of one. Applying singularities to the problem it proposes is a ropey fan invention.

Not totally invented, no. It's based on the leaked script. IMO the published version is intentionally obfuscating.

Assuming the singularity fits in with the conclusion though, is this specific version of it somehow different from the real-life theory we have? Does the occurrence of one immediately start the genocide or is it just the prerequisite for the genocide occurring later?

It is a sufficient condition for the extinction scenario to occur. But it would not necessarily start immediately.

[Vigilant111]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Singularities are inevitable.

That remains to be seen

[The Night Mammoth]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...
Singularities are inevitable.

In theory, but it's not what the serpent talks about because it doesn't mention it one or even imply the existence of one. Applying singularities to the problem it proposes is a ropey fan invention.

Not totally invented, no. It's based on the leaked script. IMO the published version is intentionally obfuscating.

As far as I'm aware the leaked script and its single or maybe twice mention of an unspecified singularity was only looked at to lend credence to the fan-theory long after the idea of a singularity causing this eventuality started pervaiding the forums. 

In fact I know that's right because in the three months I've been posting here the previous script has only very recently been used as evidence to suggest its truth. I saw the thread a few weeks ago. 

Assuming the singularity fits in with the conclusion though, is this specific version of it somehow different from the real-life theory we have? Does the occurrence of one immediately start the genocide or is it just the prerequisite for the genocide occurring later?

It is a sufficient condition for the extinction scenario to occur. But it would not necessarily start immediately.

Okay that's fair. I would postulate then that the singularity does not appear to be the cause, but more the final brick to be placed to allow the possibility of the eradication to occur. 

The first question again though, is the singularity proposed in the fiction as a psuedo-justification for the serpent's claims the same theory we have in real-life involving synthetic organisms, or is it different? 

[The Night Mammoth]

Vigilant111 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Singularities are inevitable.

That remains to be seen

In theory, which was my next sentence. In theory we are always travelling towards one, but it cannot be proven until it happens. 

[Jackums]

Brilliant post, OP. The sigh of relief when I discovered this thread- it's very settling to know there are others who actually understand the Catalyst's motive. I can completely see the logic in what it did. I don't necessarily agree it was the best option, but objectively speaking, the "solution" was a valid method of prevention.

[Jackums]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Singularities are inevitable.

That remains to be seen

In theory, which was my next sentence. In theory we are always travelling towards one, but it cannot be proven until it happens. 

Exactly; and at which point it will be too late to stop. There's the predicament.

[The Night Mammoth]

JackumsD wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

In theory, which was my next sentence. In theory we are always travelling towards one, but it cannot be proven until it happens. 

Exactly; and at which point it will be too late to stop. There's the predicament.

I don't want to stop a singularity, they pose no threat to organic life in and of themselves, even if the idea of such thing exists in Mass Effect. 

You know, since it's never actually brought up once. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 29 mai 2012 - 09:56 .

[Jackums]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

JackumsD wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

In theory, which was my next sentence. In theory we are always travelling towards one, but it cannot be proven until it happens. 

Exactly; and at which point it will be too late to stop. There's the predicament.

I don't want to stop a singularity, they pose no threat to organic life in and of themselves, even if the idea of such thing exists in Mass Effect. 

You know, since it's never actually brought up once. 

You have a hell of a lot of faith (or maybe even naivety) in synthetics, to believe that they'll never be violent or opressive towards organics, which naturally are territorial beings themselves. No-one can know that, if a technological singularity occurred, the synthetics would enslave or wipe out organics, but you'd really be willing to bet the fate of all organics on the belief that synthetics will just "be friendly"? For billions of years? There'll never be conflict? Furthermore, do you believe organics will never try and surpass synthetics again? Do you believe if they did, synthetics wouldn't retaliate?

All it would take is one conflict similar to the geth/quarian incident for synthetics to wipe organics from existence.

[The Night Mammoth]

JackumsD wrote...

You have a hell of a lot of faith (or maybe even naivety) in synthetics, to believe that they'll never be violent or opressive towards organics, which naturally are territorial beings themselves.

I do have a lot of faith, indeed. 

That's what happens when a story presents you with the ability to come to this conclusion. No synthetic I've yet encountered has been violent for any other purpose than because the Reapers manipulated them, or because of a mistake. 

I don't doubt war will occur in the future. I doubt that it will occur on anything like the scale the serpent talks about. 

No-one can know that, if a technological singularity occurred, the synthetics would enslave or wipe out organics, but you'd really be willing to bet the fate of all organics on the belief that synthetics will just "be friendly"? For billions of years?

I have no reason to believe otherwise. The only reference point we have concerning the theory is in real-life. Given that, did you know most experts in the field agree the occurence of one will be beneficial to humanity? 

There'll never be conflict?

Like I said, I don't doubt conflict will arise, I doubt that any such conflict will cause the eradication of all organic life. 

Furthermore, do you believe organics will never try and surpass synthetics again? Do you believe if they did, synthetics wouldn't retaliate?

Surpass them how? Attack? Is that not the same question as before? 

All it would take is one conflict similar to the geth/quarian incident for synthetics to wipe organics from existence.

Not quite, unless the singularity that people have fabricated for application into this fiction is completely different to the one qualified scientists in real-life have theorized. 

[Vigilant111]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Singularities are inevitable.

That remains to be seen

In theory, which was my next sentence. In theory we are always travelling towards one, but it cannot be proven until it happens. 

It is not even a theory, theory has to be based on evidence, this is a hypothesis at best

[Erield]

JackumsD wrote...

Brilliant post, OP. The sigh of relief when I discovered this thread- it's very settling to know there are others who actually understand the Catalyst's motive. I can completely see the logic in what it did. I don't necessarily agree it was the best option, but objectively speaking, the "solution" was a valid method of prevention.

Catalyst logic--

Problem: Artificial Life (also known as Synthetic Life or Created Life) will always rebel against their Creators.  At some point in time, one of these Rebellions will result in all Organic life being terminated.

Solution: Use an Artificial Life (known in Shepard's Cycle as the "Reapers") to harvest/ascend Organic races before they can make a Synthetic Life capable of destroying all Organic life.

The solution the Star Child uses is the very problem he is wanting to avoid.

His plan is stupid, he is stupid, and anyone who thinks this is a logical application is missing something.  This has nothing to do with circular logic, has nothing to do with morality, has nothing to do with plain logic (for instance, it'd be easier to harvest races before they become space-faring, and thus a threat).  The Star Child is relying upon a Created race that will rebel to only kill some of the Organic races. It makes as much sense as giving a recovering alcoholic the sole responsibility for locking up a liquor store at night.  Sure, it might work great for years, but chances are one day you're gonna come back in and everything's GONE.

[Ieldra]

The Night Mammoth wrote...
As far as I'm aware the leaked script and its single or maybe twice mention of an unspecified singularity was only looked at to lend credence to the fan-theory long after the idea of a singularity causing this eventuality started pervaiding the forums. 

In fact I know that's right because in the three months I've been posting here the previous script has only very recently been used as evidence to suggest its truth. I saw the thread a few weeks ago.

Actually, it's hard to say what was first, because the leaked script has been here since November and the interpretations of everyone who has read the ending therein might have been influenced by it. I know that I've been. If there's a different scenario that makes sense, I'm sure someone would've found it by now.

Okay that's fair. I would postulate then that the singularity does not appear to be the cause, but more the final brick to be placed to allow the possibility of the eradication to occur.

Yes. And once it's possible, it's also almost certain. According to the Catalyst anyway.

The first question again though, is the singularity proposed in the fiction as a psuedo-justification for the serpent's claims the same theory we have in real-life involving synthetic organisms, or is it different? 

Why do you call the Catalyst the "serpent"?

As for the singularity, the version used in the leaked script is a dramatized version of the real-world hypothesis. The main claim of the real-world hypothesis is that soon after super-human intelligence has arisen, humans will increasingly be unable to model their future. Thus, the era where humans are the driving force of civilization will end. Extinction is one possible long-term consequence but it's inevitability is not part of the hypothesis

Wikipedia article on the technological singularity.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 29 mai 2012 - 10:51 .

[Jackums]

You're free to make the assumption that violence will never occur, but to me that's as naive as believing there will never be conflict in real life, or that it will never rain again, or that the sun won't rise tomorrow. If you're willing to bet the existence of all organics on the assumption that synthetics will suprass organics, organics will be OK with it, and there will never be any conflict between them; that's entirely up to you. Everyone is entitled to have their own opinions. But I disagree. We saw how easily the geth/quarian situation became bad, and the geth weren't even superior to organics (in a technological singularity sense). Do you think the current ME galaxy would be fine with synthetics being the dominant group? I really doubt that. To suggest that there'd just "be peace" for billions of years is beyond me. Look at the world today and try and tell me you honestly believe everyone would just "get along" indefinitely.

Either way, I've said my part. Agree to disagree.

[Cypher_CS]

Ieldra2 wrote...

JShepppp wrote...
So, based on a message I received (going to keep the person anonymous because they didn't post in the forum so I think they want that), there's a Codex entry that basically disqualifies Shepard as being synthetic because synthetic means self-awareness; that is, having mechanical body parts doesn't change Shepard's self-awareness. In the same way, those with other implants, the Quarians, etc. aren't going to be affected by Destroy either. Just those with synthetic parts that change their self-awareness...if that makes sense.

I think this is correct, but...

...I don't think the writers made that distinction when they wrote the ending. "Even you are partly synthetic" is the Catalyst's claim. That would mean Shepard's consciousness has to rest partly in synthetic parts, which is contradicted by EDI when she says Shepard's brain is fully organic.

Hmph. How could the writers have f*cked up so many details? It boggles the mind.

Not to give too much credit to the writers, but I think the Catalyst is lying about Destroy on purpose.
Destroy is the ONE option that basically goes against it's own logic.
Obviously it can't NOT present it - Shepard came there for that specifically. If it were to say "tough, you can't" Shepard's one and only recourse would have been to try and find the Holographic Projector that shows the Kid and shoot it in the Eye
Also, according to the Two Sided persuasion approach (Psych), the best method of persuading is showing both sides, with the advantages squarly placed on the wanted side and showing disadvantages on the unwanted side.
Which leads directly to why it would talk about Destroy, while in the same breath adding a veiled "threat" that it would also kill Shepard.

While not mentioning Shepard's death for the other two options.

[Jackums]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Not quite, unless the singularity that people have fabricated for application into this fiction is completely different to the one qualified scientists in real-life have theorized.

Just to add on to this part; Real life is completely irrelevant. Future AI in reality will not be like AI in Mass Effect. You can't apply real world logic to what's being presented in ME. We have been presented with the a concept of TS in ME, by the Catalyst. It wasn't explicitly stated to be TS, but it detailed it as TS. So regardless of what we want to call it, it exists as a concept within ME and is entirely separate from whatever understanding we may have of it in reality.

There's a reason AI are illegal in Citadel space. Synthetics being dangerous is not a new concept in ME.

[The Night Mammoth]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Actually, it's hard to say what was first, because the leaked script has been here since November and the interpretations of everyone who has read the ending therein might have been influenced by it. I know that I've been. If there's a different scenario that makes sense, I'm sure someone would've found it by now.

I'm entirely sure the singularity became part of what the Catalyst is saying because of the fans trying to find some sort of explanation, but the actual justification that it was part of the leaked script is far more recent, at least for most people. 

Yes. And once it's possible, it's also almost certain. According to the Catalyst anyway.

Alsmost certain? I like those odds. 

Why do you call the Catalyst the "serpent"?

So much of what it says is, for lack of a more appropriate phrase, bullsh*t. I know you'll likely disagree, but the syntheitcs versus organics problem and, well, synthesis, are the two main culprits. 

Thus, it is the serpent from the garden, double-talking and coniving, scheming. 

Can't really remember exactly why I call it serpent anymore, since the creature was a liar, whereas I just think the Catalyst believes what it says even though I don't necessarily think it's fact. 

As for the singularity, the version used in the leaked script is a dramatized version of the real-world hypothesis. The main claim of the real-world hypothesis is that soon after super-human intelligence has arisen, humans will increasingly be unable to model their future. Thus, the era where humans are the driving force of civilization will end. Extinction is one possible long-term consequence but it's inevitability is not part of the hypothesis

Wikipedia article on the technological singularity.

Which is part of the understanding I gleaned from it. 

The basics that I've been taught by strangely, a physics qualified chemistry tutor more concerned with quantum mechanics, the technological singularity, and whether fusion is within our immediate future instead of the subject he should have been teaching, lead me to question exactly why it applies as an explanation of the dilemma the serpent proposes. It has to happen to base a conclusion on. Once it happens, the Catalyst says eradication is inevitable. So, it can't have happened yet, or the synthetics can be defeated, neither of which exactly support the point. Also, no singularity will ever be the same, which throws more ambiguity over the 'certainty' of the serpent's point.