1057 réponses à ce sujet

[llbountyhunter]

frylock23 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

its making up an imagenary threat. just like the "tv attracts flesh eating zombies" analogy 

We see rogue AIs all the time in ME; there's even a law in Citadel space that bans it. As for the singularity, we haven't seen that. If you take the singularity as inevitable - that AIs will eventually surpass organics - then it becomes a problem. Once an AI gets that level of power, by definition of the singularity, the AI would keep it forever.

the only "rouge AI" we really know about is EDI, and that was self defence as well.

and while yes there may be wars, sysntetics dont wipe out organics (geth let quarian live) like the starbrats makes it out to be.


also the starbrat has never LET the events play out comepletly by themselvs.he always intervenes just BEFORE the synthetics are supposedly going to "take over". 



I dont get your last point... cant things get downgraded? its like evolution (there very similar as you kindly pointed out) if a human doesnt use his mental prowess or strength he loses through lack of use. same with sytheitcs: they could get rid of stuff they dont need.

No cycle since the advent of Star Brat has ever evolved naturally because he and the Reapers make sure that all tecnology evolves with their guidance because they leave the relays scattered around. So, there actually hasn't ever been a truly "natural" cycle.

It's like the difficulty of observing the natural behavior of sharks. Most of what we know is observed after we've lured them in with food and watch them while hanging in a giant, unnatural steel cage. Is that actually natural behavior or not?

Well, this cycle has made use of the Citadel and strategically placed mass relays which were built by the Reapers to develop their technologies. They've made use of the data caches left around by Protheans who also used technologies developed off of the Citadel and mass relays and data caches left around by the Inusannon who developed technologies off the Citadel and the mass relays ... See the pattern? So, how much of the development of advanced civilization and technology in this cycle is natural? Oh, and let's not forget the discreet tampering being done by the Protheans ...

correct. 

so, if the relays and other aid from the reapers pacify syntheitics...

well, now we know hes a liar.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 30 mai 2012 - 05:06 .

[Cypher_CS]

llbountyhunter wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

its making up an imagenary threat. just like the "tv attracts flesh eating zombies" analogy 

We see rogue AIs all the time in ME; there's even a law in Citadel space that bans it. As for the singularity, we haven't seen that. If you take the singularity as inevitable - that AIs will eventually surpass organics - then it becomes a problem. Once an AI gets that level of power, by definition of the singularity, the AI would keep it forever.

the only "rouge AI" we really know about is EDI, and that was self defence as well.

and while yes there may be wars, sysntetics dont wipe out organics (geth let quarian live) like the starbrats makes it out to be.


also the starbrat has never LET the events play out comepletly by themselvs.he always intervenes just BEFORE the synthetics are supposedly going to "take over". 



I dont get your last point... cant things get downgraded? its like evolution (there very similar as you kindly pointed out) if a human doesnt use his mental prowess or strength he loses through lack of use. same with sytheitcs: they could get rid of stuff they dont need.

You just don't get it, do you?

First of all, those laws that were mentioned all the way back in ME1 came before EDI.

Secondly, it's not about whether the basis of the Catalyst's assumption is correct or not.
It's the FACT that it has that assumption and that assumption assume Invariability.
Now, the ONLY argument I'm stating here is not whether his assumption is right or wrong, but the FACT that you can't disprove Invariability by a single occurance (which is not the end or final occurance).
That's all.

[llbountyhunter]

Cypher_CS wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

its making up an imagenary threat. just like the "tv attracts flesh eating zombies" analogy 

We see rogue AIs all the time in ME; there's even a law in Citadel space that bans it. As for the singularity, we haven't seen that. If you take the singularity as inevitable - that AIs will eventually surpass organics - then it becomes a problem. Once an AI gets that level of power, by definition of the singularity, the AI would keep it forever.

the only "rouge AI" we really know about is EDI, and that was self defence as well.

and while yes there may be wars, sysntetics dont wipe out organics (geth let quarian live) like the starbrats makes it out to be.


also the starbrat has never LET the events play out comepletly by themselvs.he always intervenes just BEFORE the synthetics are supposedly going to "take over". 



I dont get your last point... cant things get downgraded? its like evolution (there very similar as you kindly pointed out) if a human doesnt use his mental prowess or strength he loses through lack of use. same with sytheitcs: they could get rid of stuff they dont need.

You just don't get it, do you?

First of all, those laws that were mentioned all the way back in ME1 came before EDI.

Secondly, it's not about whether the basis of the Catalyst's assumption is correct or not.
It's the FACT that it has that assumption and that assumption assume Invariability.
Now, the ONLY argument I'm stating here is not whether his assumption is right or wrong, but the FACT that you can't disprove Invariability by a single occurance (which is not the end or final occurance).
That's all.

? you just dont read do you? 


edit: i suppose i should explain myself in simple terms... but first, about those council laws. yes they were there in me1. and? the council has a irrational fear against AI based on there experience with VI's, that doesnt mean anything.
just because my daughter has a fear of dark closets doesnt mean there is actually a danger there.

the reapers capitalize on this fear as well.



ok, do you even realize what I have been arguing? you basically just regurgitated my own argument back to me in your post. I was saying that you cant prove his logic because there hasnt been a single case where he has let the events unfold the way he says they supposedly will.

llbountyhunter wrote...


just because it cant be disproven doesnt mean its right.

 

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 30 mai 2012 - 06:35 .

[Cypher_CS]

No, I only commented on people using Geth and Quarians and EDI as a way to disprove Catalyst's logic - which is false.
Those do not disprove it's logic, no matter if the basis for it is true or false. The logic, after the base assumptions, is sound.

[draken-heart]

one idea that seals the whole series as bad: THE WHOLE SERIES WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A DREAM OF AN 18 YEAR OLD!!!!!!!!! or a story written by the 18 year old using himself/herself as the main character, and we are just playing the story writing it as we go (as the 18 year old)

Modifié par draken-heart, 30 mai 2012 - 06:55 .

[pacientK]

Obadiah wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
...
This has nothing to do with mercy. There is no logical reason to exterminate all organic life.
...

The Reapers don't consider their actions extermination. They consider it a form of preservation and ascension. Thus every argument about genocide, mass murder, and brainwashing is irrelevant with respect thier logic.

No, no, no and no! Reapers cant preserve in reaper form all races(quarians in current cycle for example). Guess what happens to those races. Genocide  yes.

[ArcanistLibram]

So the Catalyst's actions are logical because they are based on an assumption that is empirically false. Got it.

[Jamie9]

Okay. So I just read that whole wall and some of the links.

Well, I feel a little bit more informed. I understood the concept prior to reading this, of course, but it has still been enlightening.

I went with Control for the exact reasons you stated. I'm unsure whether singularity will happen, but I don't agree with wiping out organic life every 50k years. So I'll hang back in Dark Space and IF it does happen, I'll try to deal with it. Hopefully, without wiping out all life.

The big point for me is: what would synthetics be like at that point? Would they still work by consensus, or would they more or less be sentient organics, with emotions and full free will?

If it's the latter, then we don't really have the right to stop the singularity.

[A0170]

llbountyhunter wrote...

A0170 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

its making up an imagenary threat. just like the "tv attracts flesh eating zombies" analogy 

We see rogue AIs all the time in ME; there's even a law in Citadel space that bans it. As for the singularity, we haven't seen that. If you take the singularity as inevitable - that AIs will eventually surpass organics - then it becomes a problem. Once an AI gets that level of power, by definition of the singularity, the AI would keep it forever.

the only "rouge AI" we really know about is EDI, and that was self defence as well.

and while yes there may be wars, sysntetics dont wipe out organics (geth let quarian live) like the starbrats makes it out to be.

Not true llbountyhunter. There were a few missions back in ME2 that involved a rogue AI. Project Overlord is one. The abandoned Research/Space Station is another.

overlord was not a AI, that was a VI that melded with a human.
http://masseffect.wi...roject_Overlord 

this one was a rouge "VI"
http://masseffect.wi...esearch_Station 

Actually one can argue that when it melded with David Archer's brain, Overlord in essence became an AI.

[The Night Mammoth]

ArcanistLibram wrote...

So the Catalyst's actions are logical because they are based on an assumption that is empirically false. Got it.

What's the assumption?

[llbountyhunter]

A0170 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

A0170 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

its making up an imagenary threat. just like the "tv attracts flesh eating zombies" analogy 

We see rogue AIs all the time in ME; there's even a law in Citadel space that bans it. As for the singularity, we haven't seen that. If you take the singularity as inevitable - that AIs will eventually surpass organics - then it becomes a problem. Once an AI gets that level of power, by definition of the singularity, the AI would keep it forever.

the only "rouge AI" we really know about is EDI, and that was self defence as well.

and while yes there may be wars, sysntetics dont wipe out organics (geth let quarian live) like the starbrats makes it out to be.

Not true llbountyhunter. There were a few missions back in ME2 that involved a rogue AI. Project Overlord is one. The abandoned Research/Space Station is another.

overlord was not a AI, that was a VI that melded with a human.
http://masseffect.wi...roject_Overlord 

this one was a rouge "VI"
http://masseffect.wi...esearch_Station 

Actually one can argue that when it melded with David Archer's brain, Overlord in essence became an AI.

a human with a VI attached does not make him a AI.... the definition of a AI   is artificil linteligence. david archer is not artificial.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 30 mai 2012 - 08:22 .

[A0170]

llbountyhunter wrote...

A0170 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

A0170 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

its making up an imagenary threat. just like the "tv attracts flesh eating zombies" analogy 

We see rogue AIs all the time in ME; there's even a law in Citadel space that bans it. As for the singularity, we haven't seen that. If you take the singularity as inevitable - that AIs will eventually surpass organics - then it becomes a problem. Once an AI gets that level of power, by definition of the singularity, the AI would keep it forever.

the only "rouge AI" we really know about is EDI, and that was self defence as well.

and while yes there may be wars, sysntetics dont wipe out organics (geth let quarian live) like the starbrats makes it out to be.

Not true llbountyhunter. There were a few missions back in ME2 that involved a rogue AI. Project Overlord is one. The abandoned Research/Space Station is another.

overlord was not a AI, that was a VI that melded with a human.
http://masseffect.wi...roject_Overlord 

this one was a rouge "VI"
http://masseffect.wi...esearch_Station 

Actually one can argue that when it melded with David Archer's brain, Overlord in essence became an AI.

a human with a VI attached does not make him a AI.... the definition of a AI   is artificil linteligence. david archer is not artificial.

No Archer himself isn't. But Overlord, an artificial construct made from the melding of the VI and Archer's brain is. 

Modifié par A0170, 30 mai 2012 - 08:48 .

[XqctaX]

JShepppp wrote...

XqctaX wrote...

too long to read.

and basic point will still be incoherrant narrative.

of and if this big wall of text is needed to explain an ending or the logic behind it
it has allready failed..

Well thanks, but this isn't about whether the story is good/bad or the ending is good/bad.

you should read what i wrote again. "or the logic behind it" 

its only logical if you want to convince yourself it is.
i wont try and change your mind.
but im going to dissagree with anything the starbrat said as beeing logical

[Obadiah]

pacientK wrote...
...
Reapers cant preserve in reaper form all races(quarians in current cycle for example). Guess what happens to those races. Genocide  yes.

How do you know this? What makes you think those smaller Reapers Shep destroyed weren't created from races of smaller populations? What if Shep is the one committing genocide by destroying them?

P.S. Let me just throw something else out there. I see a lot of talk of "genocide" in this thread.

That's nice.

Talk of "genocide" is a great way to get sympathy and support in a conflict, but it has very little relevance when discussing the logic and rationale where one side is perpetrating that on another. Yes, to us organics it is genocide - thank you for labelling it so helpfully. I'm sure now that it has a name, the Reaper's reationale will just fall apart and they'll all go home.

It only makes sense bringing it up in this thread (please don't stop on my account) if someone is arguing for supporting the Reapers, but I think pretty much everyone already thinks that what the Reapers are doing is genocide and needs to be stopped.

Just as a thought experiment: if the Council was actually winning and the Reapers suddenly surrendered and sued for peace, would anyone seriously consider not wiping them out in a genocide?

Modifié par Obadiah, 31 mai 2012 - 03:51 .

[JShepppp]

Obadiah wrote...

How do you know this? What makes you think those smaller Reapers Shep destroyed weren't created from races of smaller populations? What if Shep is the one committing genocide by destroying them?

I considered this in another thread I started. Most of the people answered by saying the Reapers don't "save" anyone, but I was trying to say that if we just assume for a second that they do, then would it affect our moral dispositions. Most people were very divided on genocide because the Reapers forced their hand so morally, in self-defense, it's not the case. Irregardless of the moral assumptions, though, I'm sure we can all agree that practically, for our survival, we have to destroy them.

P.S. Let me just throw something else out there. I see a lot of talk of "genocide" in this thread.

That's nice.

Talk of "genocide" is a great way to get sympathy and support in a conflict, but it has very little relevance when discussing the logic and rationale where one side is perpetrating that on another. Yes, to us organics it is genocide - thank you for labelling it so helpfully. I'm sure now that it has a name, the Reaper's reationale will just fall apart and they'll all go home.

It only makes sense bringing it up in this thread (please don't stop on my account) if someone is arguing for supporting the Reapers, but I think pretty much everyone already thinks that what the Reapers are doing is genocide and needs to be stopped.

I agree. The Catalyst believes it's saving people whereas we believe it's not. It's as much of a moral/philosophical disagreement (what constitutes life) as a scientific one (can it be done). We see that the latter is possible in ME; minds can be uploaded to synthetic domains. But we don't know if this is actually what the Catalyst does and/or what kind of existence that would be (Catalyst controls the Reapers' actions but we don't know if it indoctrinates or controls their thoughts; Reapers could just be designed in such a way that they're storehouses).

But yes, the Reapers do not believe they are committing genocide. In the cases where they do, they believe it's necessary as a kind of pre-emptive strike before either the organics kill them or the organics create synthetics that kill them. 

Just as a thought experiment: if the Council was actually winning and the Reapers suddenly surrendered and sued for peace, would anyone seriously consider not wiping them out in a genocide?

Their past history means that the peace probably won't last. Personally, I'd look at the past history and make a pre-emptive strike like they do. Interesting situation you give though. Morals aside, if we wipe out the Reapers, we'd be guilty of the same kind of pre-emptive strikes they're doing. That is, in your situation, we'd kill them either because (a) they may attack us again in the future, or ( they deserve to pay for their past crimes (or both). 

If you take out morals, then (a) is the only option, I think, and we basically follow the Catalyst's line of reasoning. Sure, nothing's to guarantee that Reapers won't attack, but they have before, and so we know there's a chance the peace won't last. Give it enough time and they'll fight again. Can't take the chance that they'll wipe us out in the future when we can wipe them out now. 

Modifié par JShepppp, 01 juin 2012 - 02:59 .

[Erield]

JShepppp wrote...

[snip! You are discussing: "What if the Reapers suddenly surrendered?"]

Their past history means that the peace probably won't last. Personally, I'd look at the past history and make a pre-emptive strike like they do. Interesting situation you give though. Morals aside, if we wipe out the Reapers, we'd be guilty of the same kind of pre-emptive strikes they're doing. That is, in your situation, we'd kill them either because (a) they may attack us again in the future, or ( they deserve to pay for their past crimes (or both).

If you take out morals, then (a) is the only option, I think, and we basically follow the Catalyst's line of reasoning. Sure, nothing's to guarantee that Reapers won't attack, but they have before, and so we know there's a chance the peace won't last. Give it enough time and they'll fight again. Can't take the chance that they'll wipe us out in the future when we can wipe them out now.

Completely and totally 100% off-topic: the bold part is essentially the start of The Morning War. The entire line of reasoning is fairly similar, too. Similar, not exact. There are differences, important ones. I'm not discounting the differences at all. I'm merely highlighting how similarity in thought-process between two different situations that have certain characteristics in common can result in people having widely different perspectives in justified outcome. (I doubt anyone would argue against the pre-emptive killing of the Reapers, if we had a reasonable chance of success, while the general consensus is that the Quarians were wrong to pre-emptively, violently attack the Geth.)

[JShepppp]

Erield wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

[snip! You are discussing: "What if the Reapers suddenly surrendered?"]

Their past history means that the peace probably won't last. Personally, I'd look at the past history and make a pre-emptive strike like they do. Interesting situation you give though. Morals aside, if we wipe out the Reapers, we'd be guilty of the same kind of pre-emptive strikes they're doing. That is, in your situation, we'd kill them either because (a) they may attack us again in the future, or ( they deserve to pay for their past crimes (or both).

If you take out morals, then (a) is the only option, I think, and we basically follow the Catalyst's line of reasoning. Sure, nothing's to guarantee that Reapers won't attack, but they have before, and so we know there's a chance the peace won't last. Give it enough time and they'll fight again. Can't take the chance that they'll wipe us out in the future when we can wipe them out now.

Completely and totally 100% off-topic: the bold part is essentially the start of The Morning War. The entire line of reasoning is fairly similar, too. Similar, not exact. There are differences, important ones. I'm not discounting the differences at all. I'm merely highlighting how similarity in thought-process between two different situations that have certain characteristics in common can result in people having widely different perspectives in justified outcome. (I doubt anyone would argue against the pre-emptive killing of the Reapers, if we had a reasonable chance of success, while the general consensus is that the Quarians were wrong to pre-emptively, violently attack the Geth.)

Yeah. Still, the Geth did rebel (Quarians: Stay still while we deactivate you; Geth: No) technically, no matter how messed up it is.

The idea of a pre-emptive strike is basically what the Catalyst is doing, except of course, rather than believe there's a high chance that synthetics will wipe out organics, it views it to be a certainty, and rather than killing organics, it believes it's saving them. 

Saving organics of the current cycle ("ascending") is a secondary goal. Whether or not the Catalyst REALLY does it is irrelevant to its primary objective of stopping the technological singularity  in my humble opinion. It's definitely a very interesting tangent, but the singularity is the main concern - the emergence of an AI not only beyond any organic but beyond the Reapers as well. 

That is to say, even if the Catalyst outright killed the organics, from its point of view, it's worth it to stop the singularity. And surely this has happened in the past, as with Protheans, who they turned into glorified husks and slaves for the next cycle. It's kind of like a secondary objective is to (a) "ascend" races into a Reaper or ( "repurpose" them into serving the cycle, in that order. 

We see the Reapers not bother to "save" some races (Quarians). But this is secondary to the singularity.

[Taboo]

It would be really cool if we could get someone here to do some statistics. I cannot do math AT ALL and any attempt at large scale equations would be suicide for me.

If someone could answer these questions with a Yes or No it would help me a great deal.

Can we accurately predict the possibility of a singularity now? - I can't see this happening right now, at least without more info from the Catalyst.

Can we factor in the variables post-Crucible usage? If the galaxy is in big trouble I don't see many resources being used to create new Synthetics (Destroy here)

Can we factor in the possibility that we will even survive long enough for the Synthetics to overtake us?

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 01 juin 2012 - 04:04 .

[JShepppp]

Taboo-XX wrote...

It would be really cool if we could get someone here to do some statistics. I cannot do math AT ALL and any attempt at large scale equations would be suicide for me.

If someone could answer these questions with a Yes or No it would help me a great deal.

Can we accurately predict the possibility of a singularity now? - I can't see this happening right now, at least without more info from the Catalyst.

Can we factor in the variables post-Crucible usage? If the galaxy is in big trouble I don't see many resources being used to create new Synthetics (Destroy here)

Can we factor in the possibility that we will even survive long enough for the Synthetics to overtake us?

All of the above would really be helpful, yes. I don't know if we're given enough info in-game or in-universe about these though to extrapolate our data, and your point (both here and in other threads) that the Catalyst not presenting any data being a problem is, imo, very true. The Catalyst as a whole was sloppily introduced, dialogue and otherwise. 

I wonder if solving those statistics may require making broad assumptions that may make the numbers not as reliable. 

Making the assumption that (a) a singularity is inevitable and ( it will result in the end of all organics are, ironically, similarly broad assumptions. But those aren't unfounded.

[knightnblu]

The Catalyst is wrong for the following reasons:
 
1. One cannot predict the future
 
2. The Geth did not rebel against the Quarians. They sought to serve them and when they had to opportunity to destroy their creators, they relented. If you play your cards right, the Geth and the Quarians are on track for a symbiotic existence. This is the counterexample to the Catalyst's assertions proving that his logic is invalid.
 
3. One could argue the same about nanotechnology. The sticky goo problem could arise at any time and wipe out all life, so we will kill you before that comes to pass. Ditto any self replicative technology that converts matter.
 
4. While the Catalyst has assumed technological superiority, he actively works to prevent any other from achieving it outside of his control. This is done solely to keep organic life in check and under his thumb.
 
5. "Preserving life" by reducing it to its chemical components and storing it in a tin preserves life no more than reducing water down to its bases of hydrogen and oxygen as tanks of gasses preserves H2O.
 
6. The essence of life is destroyed when taken down to its base genetic code. Where is the culture? Where is the language? Where is the art? Where are the values of these peoples? All is lost. The Catalyst is therefore a destroyer and slave master preventing the ghosts within the machine from expressing any will of their own.
 
7. The logic of the Catalyst is circular.
 
8. The Catalyst impresses his will upon the natural word in an effort to change the fundamental laws of the universe. Chaos is the foundation of the universe. By suppressing it, the Catalyst seeks to control reality and is therefore doomed to failure. By attempting to abridge one of the fundamental laws of reality, the Catalyst seeks to play God through the imposition of his will. As old as the Catalyst is, the universe is far older and life, as an agent of chaos, found a way to re-assert its dominion.
 
The Crucible was the product of countless reaping cycles. Each cycle took it and added to it, refined it, and passed it on. Had the catalyst had a functional reasoning center, he would have arrived at the conclusion that his plan was destined for failure, but he did not. One cannot bend the foundations of the universe to one's will for long. When I say "for long" I mean that in the perspective of the universe. What is a billion years to the cosmos?
 
9. The Catalyst assumed the form of the child that Shepard watched die. He did so in order to manipulate Shepard. Such manipulation suggests ill intent. A friend would meet you on even ground and not use your own psychology as a weapon against you.


10. The choices presented by the Catalyst represent his own will and services his own needs. They do not reflect what is best for the galaxy as a whole, but what is best for the Catalyst. Consider, have you ever seriously offered a choice in a negotiation that would be bad for yourself? From left to right we have control, synthesis, and destroy. All choices terminate Shepard and destroy the mass relays.
 
Control eliminates Shepard, blows the mass relays and calls off the dogs. Synthesis fundamentally changes all matter in the universe, destroys Shepard, and blows the mass relays. And before you get going, synthesis does indeed destroy Shepard. He is merged with the Catalyst and the two become one and how much do you want to bet that the Catalyst insures Shep is fully within his control? Destroy kills Shepard, kills EDI, kills the Geth, and blows the mass relays. Of the three choices, it is apparent that the Catalyst wants you to choose the synthesis option.
 
That is the option that guarantees peace the Catalyst tells you. But you have to rape the galaxy to get it and wouldn't rape be good if it brings peace? The reasoning is sick and the word "peace" is just the justification for a vile act. But then you can say that you raped the galaxy in order to save EDI and the Geth. Those are also justifications for committing an atrocity. If I remember correctly, the Germans argued that by killing the Jews they were actually bettering mankind. Evil always loves justification.
 
What about control? The shadow of death hangs over that option. Rivers of blood, horror, and shredded flesh are all implied with that choice. Not so for synthesis. That is presented as the happy option and is even colored green and everyone knows that green is good. Somehow I suspect that the Catalyst has some Reaper code mixed up in there that will slave everyone into his will as a result of this choice.
 
An energy wave hits you, re-writes your DNA and flesh to match it, who's to say that there isn't something that subverts your will to that of the Catalyst? Who says that the Catalyst is gone with synthesis? Perhaps instead of a collected intelligence aboard the Citadel, we are now housing a distributed intelligence like the Reapers do. Shepard pulled the switch, but he never really looked at the labeling or read the package warnings.
 
So there you have it. Ten reasons that the Catalyst is wrong and why his reasoning is flawed. Too bad the writers never figured it out.

[Taboo]

Shepard survives Destroy.

It says so in the game files.

Jesus.

[lordhugorune]

I like the logic - it's a pity that they didn't give Shepherd the opportunity to challenge Catalyst on these points in the ending (The missing 'investigate'). Appreciate the work you put in to this post.

[Tov01]

lordhugorune wrote...

I like the logic - it's a pity that they didn't give Shepherd the opportunity to challenge Catalyst on these points in the ending (The missing 'investigate'). Appreciate the work you put in to this post.

Yeah, I missed that investigate option, as well. I don't expect to ever change it's mind (for some reason, I always picture argueing with the Catalyst like arguing with conspirac theorists, or creationists - no matter how much you say, no one changes their mind), but I would have loved to at least see Shepard try.


OP, I like your work, but I think there is one thing missing that will make the Catalyst make slightly more sense, and that is to realize that the Catalyst has a vastly different set of values than we do. It values the group strongly over the individual, and so turning people into reapers is the perfect way to protect them, in it's mind.

One ting I always come back to when trying to make sense of the catalyst is the idea of the Paperclip Maximizer, both in terms of what the Catalyst is, and what it was trying to prevent.

[Ciiran]

Excellent thread, JShepppp. I made an effort to do something similar three months back:
Geth/EDI are NOT evidence that the Catalysts problem is false
No need to read the entire thread, I imagine that all of it has been kicked around in this thread a couple of times. I'm glad someone did it properly. :-)

I agree with almost everything in your initial post. The problem for most people seems to be the distinction with morally justified acts and logically justified acts. I argue that the Catalyst/Reapers are basically doing game theory with incredibly large bets. Emotions and morality of individuals and even civilizations/species are just not factors that matter to the Reapers.

Modifié par Ciiran, 04 juin 2012 - 06:06 .

[lordhugorune]

Although Ciiran, there is a sort of implied moral statement behind the Catalyst's logic: that the preservation of organic life is a good thing, or if you prefer, the extinction of all organic life is a bad thing.

I guess the hardest thing is that none of us - and no one in the Mass Effect 3 universe, even with the advanced development of the geth - really has any understanding of what an AI that reached a technological singularity would be like.