I agree, lordhugorune. There is a moral statement there. I was referring to the catalysts solution. Sorry if I was unclear.
Why the Catalyst's Logic is Right (Technological Singularity)
Débuté par
JShepppp
, mars 29 2012 09:04
Retour en haut
#952
Posté 05 juin 2012 - 12:02
JShepppp
-
- Members
- 1 607 messages
Hello. Apologies for not replying to this sooner. I'd like to give some of my thoughts about the points you've made.
[quote]knightnblu wrote...
The Catalyst is wrong for the following reasons:
1. One cannot predict the future[/quote]
With sufficient information, you can become reasonably confident. The Catalyst appears to be confident enough that it views things with a kind of certainty. We aren't given any such indication of data, but it's more implicitly implied versus explicitly stated; that is, the Catalyst would have to be stupid to have zero data, at least over the cycles it's overseen.
[quote]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.[/quote]
The Geth DID rebel. In a nutshell, it went like this:
QUARIANS: Stand still while we deactivate you (kill you).
GETH: No.
It doesn't matter how "right" the Geth may have been in fighting for "continued existence", as Legion puts it. They disobeyed their creators. Nobody's saying who was right and wrong in their actions. The facts are that they rebelled. Rebellion doesn't mean killing off everyone. It means it's when synthetics will stop obeying organics; on another level, it could also be seen as the moment synthetics gain/portray "true" sentience.
You're saying they didn't destroy the Quarians, which is true. They did rebel. They didn't wipe out their creators. The two are different. Legion says it wasn't because they cared for the Quarians but was because they didn't know the repercussions of genocide.
Let's say something was way, way more advanced (a singularity) to the point where it could believe it could comprehend such things. Would it choose to do so? We don't know. Remember, the Geth didn't choose not to kill the Quarians because they cared for the Quarians; it was because they didn't know what would happen if they did genocide. This is disturbing because it means there could have been a situation where the Geth, if powerful enough, could have "known" the repercussions and executed genocide anyways. The Catalyst is unwilling to take that chance. Let synthetics advance too far and such things become troublesome.
As for coexistence, look at the circumstances that brought them together. The Geth needed Reaper technology for the Quarians to even consider peace; basically, in-game, the Quarians only back off when it's clear the Geth will wipe them out. If the Geth were "less" capable, things might have been different. Also, the whole situation about needing to fight Reapers creates an immediacy that may not normally be present. Basically, the situation is out-of-the-ordinary because of the Reapers' presence. The peace may not last, symbiotic or not.
[quote]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.[/quote]
Correct, but I'm not sure if you're using this to support the Catalyst being "right" or "wrong". The Catalyst is unwilling to take the chance. Also, remember, it doesn't believe it's killing anybody; it believes it's preserving them. Overall, though, preservation of current organics, we see, is a secondary objective because they don't save everyone.
[quote]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.[/quote]
I discussed why organics advancing farther than the Reapers can be troublesome for the Catalyst's goals (not just existence) in the OP. We don't know explicitly if the sole purpose of the cycle is for the Reapers to keep their hegemony on galactic power (Catalyst says otherwise), so to speak, but we do know it's a byproduct if nothing else.
[quote]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.[/quote]
No, because there are constituents of life that are not so easily defined or known. In the ME universe, organic minds can be uploaded to synthetic parts. The Reapers say they're saving people. Legion says Reapers have 1000 organic minds uploaded or something (may be a million/billion etc.). We don't know if such an existence is "free" in any way ("free of thought" but not free to act, given the Catalyst's control).
When you talk about what defines life, you're making certain assumptions that we don't know are really true (e.g. some may say that organics have a soul, something that can never "exist" or be "preserved" outside organic bodies). The Catalyst makes its own such judgements in that regard.
[quote]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.[/quote]
See above, but I'd like to add more. The Catalyst just controls their actions. It doesn't control their thoughts. It could, for all we know, be a blissfully free existence in virtual reality without the organic minds in Reapers ever knowing what the Reapers are doing. We don't know. All the "culture" is "stored" in the organic minds.
The Catalyst is a destroyer and slaver, yes, but you're not finishing the sentence. It is such things in order to save all organic life. It's like saying a soldier is a killer...to save innocent citizens in his own country, even if he/she must kill other citizens as collateral surrounding a military target.
That doesn't mean we have to agree with it. We're the collateral in its goal. We should be upset. We should fight for our rights and fight against the atrocities it's done. But it did them for the best of reasons even if they were the worst of actions.
[quote]7. The logic of the Catalyst is circular.[/quote]
Yes, but given the nature of the problem, it would be incredibly difficult for it to decide anything otherwise. I conceded this in the OP as well.
[quote]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?[/quote]
Nowhere did the Catalyst say it expected its solution would work forever. It willingly found a new solution when its own wouldn't work.
[quote]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.[/quote]
Yes, that's possible, or it could have been trying to take a form to be sympathetic because it was afraid Shepard would hurt or not listen to it when it didn't want to hurt Shepard (saving Shepard indicates the latter). If it took the form of a Reaper, Shepard never would've cooperated.
[quote]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.[/quote]
The Crucible created the options. The Catalyst just presents them (as a kind of story-telling device too). If the Catalyst REALLY was just presenting its own desires and influencing Shepard, it'd just tell about Synthesis and never about Destroy.
They reflect for the galaxy what is better than the current situation they have - death by Reapers. We're not going to have fluffy ponies and tasty cake everywhere all of a sudden. People live in the endings. They don't live - in a way they'd like - with the Reapers.
I'd also like to point to the leaked script (admittedly not final, so take it with a grain of salt) where the Catalyst says that the Crucible detached control of the Reapers; he no longer controls them. This is why it helps Shep and is okay with the Reapers being destroyed - it's afraid the Reapers, without his control, can run amok and be the very thing they were created to destroy. For starters, they could self-evolve again. Eventually they'd reach the singularity and it'd all be over.
[quote]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.[/quote]
Shepard becomes the new Catalyst in Control. Destroy kills all synthetics (collateral) and Shepard can live, but the chances for the future of the galaxy apparently are bleak in the long run (Shep living was supposed to "balance" out the destroy ending, I believe). I will discuss synthesis more below.
[quote]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.[/quote]
Synthesis was presented poorly. I suggest you check out this thread by Ieldra2; there's some awesome stuff in there. Synthesis was more likely presented as an ascension of sorts but this went awry because the ideals of synthesis were unfortunately not separated enough from the Reapers, if that makes sense.
Synthesis solves the singularity the "best" out of the options. This is why the Catalyst likes it; it's most in line with its goals. It couldn't do it earlier because the Crucible wasn't built yet.
[quote]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.[/quote]
I don't know how the shadow of death hangs over control because everyone, including the Reapers too (if that's important), lives, and Shep is uploaded Geth-collective-style as the Catalyst or something.
[quote]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.[/quote]
The Catalyst has no reason to lie to you, indicated by its offering of the destroy option at the very least. If you don't like synthesis then don't pick it. That doesn't mean the Catalyst's ideas are wrong or anything. It seems you disagree with the morality of synthesis, not its potential to solve the singularity, or the singularity's viability other than that the future can't be predicted.
[quote]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.[/quote]
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion.
[quote]knightnblu wrote...
The Catalyst is wrong for the following reasons:
1. One cannot predict the future[/quote]
With sufficient information, you can become reasonably confident. The Catalyst appears to be confident enough that it views things with a kind of certainty. We aren't given any such indication of data, but it's more implicitly implied versus explicitly stated; that is, the Catalyst would have to be stupid to have zero data, at least over the cycles it's overseen.
[quote]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.[/quote]
The Geth DID rebel. In a nutshell, it went like this:
QUARIANS: Stand still while we deactivate you (kill you).
GETH: No.
It doesn't matter how "right" the Geth may have been in fighting for "continued existence", as Legion puts it. They disobeyed their creators. Nobody's saying who was right and wrong in their actions. The facts are that they rebelled. Rebellion doesn't mean killing off everyone. It means it's when synthetics will stop obeying organics; on another level, it could also be seen as the moment synthetics gain/portray "true" sentience.
You're saying they didn't destroy the Quarians, which is true. They did rebel. They didn't wipe out their creators. The two are different. Legion says it wasn't because they cared for the Quarians but was because they didn't know the repercussions of genocide.
Let's say something was way, way more advanced (a singularity) to the point where it could believe it could comprehend such things. Would it choose to do so? We don't know. Remember, the Geth didn't choose not to kill the Quarians because they cared for the Quarians; it was because they didn't know what would happen if they did genocide. This is disturbing because it means there could have been a situation where the Geth, if powerful enough, could have "known" the repercussions and executed genocide anyways. The Catalyst is unwilling to take that chance. Let synthetics advance too far and such things become troublesome.
As for coexistence, look at the circumstances that brought them together. The Geth needed Reaper technology for the Quarians to even consider peace; basically, in-game, the Quarians only back off when it's clear the Geth will wipe them out. If the Geth were "less" capable, things might have been different. Also, the whole situation about needing to fight Reapers creates an immediacy that may not normally be present. Basically, the situation is out-of-the-ordinary because of the Reapers' presence. The peace may not last, symbiotic or not.
[quote]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.[/quote]
Correct, but I'm not sure if you're using this to support the Catalyst being "right" or "wrong". The Catalyst is unwilling to take the chance. Also, remember, it doesn't believe it's killing anybody; it believes it's preserving them. Overall, though, preservation of current organics, we see, is a secondary objective because they don't save everyone.
[quote]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.[/quote]
I discussed why organics advancing farther than the Reapers can be troublesome for the Catalyst's goals (not just existence) in the OP. We don't know explicitly if the sole purpose of the cycle is for the Reapers to keep their hegemony on galactic power (Catalyst says otherwise), so to speak, but we do know it's a byproduct if nothing else.
[quote]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.[/quote]
No, because there are constituents of life that are not so easily defined or known. In the ME universe, organic minds can be uploaded to synthetic parts. The Reapers say they're saving people. Legion says Reapers have 1000 organic minds uploaded or something (may be a million/billion etc.). We don't know if such an existence is "free" in any way ("free of thought" but not free to act, given the Catalyst's control).
When you talk about what defines life, you're making certain assumptions that we don't know are really true (e.g. some may say that organics have a soul, something that can never "exist" or be "preserved" outside organic bodies). The Catalyst makes its own such judgements in that regard.
[quote]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.[/quote]
See above, but I'd like to add more. The Catalyst just controls their actions. It doesn't control their thoughts. It could, for all we know, be a blissfully free existence in virtual reality without the organic minds in Reapers ever knowing what the Reapers are doing. We don't know. All the "culture" is "stored" in the organic minds.
The Catalyst is a destroyer and slaver, yes, but you're not finishing the sentence. It is such things in order to save all organic life. It's like saying a soldier is a killer...to save innocent citizens in his own country, even if he/she must kill other citizens as collateral surrounding a military target.
That doesn't mean we have to agree with it. We're the collateral in its goal. We should be upset. We should fight for our rights and fight against the atrocities it's done. But it did them for the best of reasons even if they were the worst of actions.
[quote]7. The logic of the Catalyst is circular.[/quote]
Yes, but given the nature of the problem, it would be incredibly difficult for it to decide anything otherwise. I conceded this in the OP as well.
[quote]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?[/quote]
Nowhere did the Catalyst say it expected its solution would work forever. It willingly found a new solution when its own wouldn't work.
[quote]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.[/quote]
Yes, that's possible, or it could have been trying to take a form to be sympathetic because it was afraid Shepard would hurt or not listen to it when it didn't want to hurt Shepard (saving Shepard indicates the latter). If it took the form of a Reaper, Shepard never would've cooperated.
[quote]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.[/quote]
The Crucible created the options. The Catalyst just presents them (as a kind of story-telling device too). If the Catalyst REALLY was just presenting its own desires and influencing Shepard, it'd just tell about Synthesis and never about Destroy.
They reflect for the galaxy what is better than the current situation they have - death by Reapers. We're not going to have fluffy ponies and tasty cake everywhere all of a sudden. People live in the endings. They don't live - in a way they'd like - with the Reapers.
I'd also like to point to the leaked script (admittedly not final, so take it with a grain of salt) where the Catalyst says that the Crucible detached control of the Reapers; he no longer controls them. This is why it helps Shep and is okay with the Reapers being destroyed - it's afraid the Reapers, without his control, can run amok and be the very thing they were created to destroy. For starters, they could self-evolve again. Eventually they'd reach the singularity and it'd all be over.
[quote]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.[/quote]
Shepard becomes the new Catalyst in Control. Destroy kills all synthetics (collateral) and Shepard can live, but the chances for the future of the galaxy apparently are bleak in the long run (Shep living was supposed to "balance" out the destroy ending, I believe). I will discuss synthesis more below.
[quote]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.[/quote]
Synthesis was presented poorly. I suggest you check out this thread by Ieldra2; there's some awesome stuff in there. Synthesis was more likely presented as an ascension of sorts but this went awry because the ideals of synthesis were unfortunately not separated enough from the Reapers, if that makes sense.
Synthesis solves the singularity the "best" out of the options. This is why the Catalyst likes it; it's most in line with its goals. It couldn't do it earlier because the Crucible wasn't built yet.
[quote]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.[/quote]
I don't know how the shadow of death hangs over control because everyone, including the Reapers too (if that's important), lives, and Shep is uploaded Geth-collective-style as the Catalyst or something.
[quote]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.[/quote]
The Catalyst has no reason to lie to you, indicated by its offering of the destroy option at the very least. If you don't like synthesis then don't pick it. That doesn't mean the Catalyst's ideas are wrong or anything. It seems you disagree with the morality of synthesis, not its potential to solve the singularity, or the singularity's viability other than that the future can't be predicted.
[quote]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.[/quote]
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion.
Modifié par JShepppp, 05 juin 2012 - 12:03 .
#953
Posté 05 juin 2012 - 12:06
JShepppp
-
- Members
- 1 607 messages
Tov01 wrote...
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.
Yeah, it seems everyone disagrees with the morals and that sometimes colors the disagreement with the Catalyst. Part of it is because the Catalyst believes Reapers "ascend" people while we don't believe that. Still, "ascending" people is secondary to stopping the singularity - it's the singularity that lies at the core of its goals.
I have never heard of or seen the link you shown about the Paperclip Maximizer. That's awesome. I'll definitely include a link to it and, after I read a bit more, will include a short summary about it in the OP. Thanks a lot for that. Hopefully it will be helpful to others too.
#954
Posté 05 juin 2012 - 12:07
JShepppp
-
- Members
- 1 607 messages
Ciiran wrote...
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. :-)
Thanks. Yeah, the more I think about it, the more Geth/EDI kind of do prove it. They both rebelled. The Geth just didn't genocide the Quarians not because they cared but because they didn't know what would happen if they did. A sufficiently advanced race will have no hesitation and may choose differently.
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.
Yeah, I agree.
#955
Posté 05 juin 2012 - 12:19
General User
-
- Members
- 3 315 messages
Something I never understood about the Catalyst's "logic" is, if it truly believed that it was important to preserve organic races, and that building a Reaper from an organic race constituted preserving that race, why then did it proceed to use it's oh, so precious "preserved" organics as front line forces where they'd be subject to being destroyed?
The Catalyst's twisted nonsense doesn't even agree with itself.
The Catalyst's twisted nonsense doesn't even agree with itself.
Modifié par General User, 05 juin 2012 - 12:23 .
#956
Posté 05 juin 2012 - 12:33
Xellith
-
- Members
- 3 606 messages
The catalyst is retarded. I love how synthesis would actually go against everything he has been doing. Imagine if somone said "The SNES is an old console. A classic. Its almost completely gone from the world. We have to protect them from the Xbox360 and PS3. So Im going to upgrade all the SNES in the world to play DVD's and downgrade all the 360s and PS3s so they cannot play BLU rays anymore". Thats pretty much the jist of how silly this is.
Protecting organics from synthetics by converting them into something else - thus completely negating what you were trying to accomplish in the first place is MADNESS.
Protecting organics from synthetics by converting them into something else - thus completely negating what you were trying to accomplish in the first place is MADNESS.
#957
Posté 05 juin 2012 - 12:42
General User
-
- Members
- 3 315 messages
You'll never meet a man more certain of anything than a lunatic is of the voices he hears in his head.JShepppp wrote...
With sufficient information, you can become reasonably confident. The Catalyst appears to be confident enough that it views things with a kind of certainty. We aren't given any such indication of data, but it's more implicitly implied versus explicitly stated; that is, the Catalyst would have to be stupid to have zero data, at least over the cycles it's overseen.
Being insane, just subscribing to a wacko philosophy/worldview, and being stupid are three different things and only the last ever lacks for certainty (and then only when it knows that it's stupid).
In other words, we still have to decide for ourselves whether or not the Catalyst has a moral/intellectual/philosophical leg to stand on regardless of how "certain" it may be of itself.
#958
Posté 05 juin 2012 - 12:48
Slayer299
-
- Members
- 3 193 messages
One has to wonder if you are trying to prove the Catalyst is correct so that the ending makes more sense or you are just looking for a never-ending debate/argument because your premise *cannot* be proven correct and you want something to do until the EC comes out...
#959
Posté 05 juin 2012 - 12:53
JShepppp
-
- Members
- 1 607 messages
Xellith wrote...
The catalyst is retarded. I love how synthesis would actually go against everything he has been doing. Imagine if somone said "The SNES is an old console. A classic. Its almost completely gone from the world. We have to protect them from the Xbox360 and PS3. So Im going to upgrade all the SNES in the world to play DVD's and downgrade all the 360s and PS3s so they cannot play BLU rays anymore". Thats pretty much the jist of how silly this is.
Protecting organics from synthetics by converting them into something else - thus completely negating what you were trying to accomplish in the first place is MADNESS.
The game console example, I admit, has me completely baffled...
As for the latter, the goal is to save organics as a whole. Saving current organics is preferred but secondary. It'd be like having a bucket of water, trying to "save" all the water, and preferring a few drops aren't spilled but if they are hey, the water in the bucket is pretty much saved anyways. Weird analogy but yeah.
#960
Posté 05 juin 2012 - 12:57
JShepppp
-
- Members
- 1 607 messages
Slayer299 wrote...
One has to wonder if you are trying to prove the Catalyst is correct so that the ending makes more sense or you are just looking for a never-ending debate/argument because your premise *cannot* be proven correct and you want something to do until the EC comes out...
As I said in the OP, I started this thread looking for answers and hoping we all could collaborate on ideas. Several have come up, and some have raised more questions, and those have been answered, and raised more, and so forth. The thread started a few months ago; it gets updated with new info and ideas generated.
The length of the first post and the recency of the latest update are a testament to how amazing the BSN community is in generating ideas and discussions.
I know it's not a perfect collaborative process, but I'd like to say it's been good so far.
#961
Posté 05 juin 2012 - 01:02
Slayer299
-
- Members
- 3 193 messages
I read most of your OP, but to be honest my eyes actually started glazing over after a while and I usually read TLDR posts completely before replying. But what I did read seems to be trying very hard to make the SC make any sense is all.
#962
Posté 05 juin 2012 - 01:19
Kyle Kabanya
-
- Members
- 171 messages
To the OP:
Your statements and reasoning to justify the starchild's logic are correct. My problem with the ending was never the logic of the kid, but how it was brought on.
Massive plot holes and a theme that was never shown or presented in the previous two games is thrown at us in the last 20 minutes of the game. That's my problem with the ending, along with the terrible cutscenes.
The indoctrination theory is good, but that's the thing, its a theory simply to explain an ending to a game. I'm a cut and dry type of person. I want to know what happens, not sit by thinking of ideas to justify a poorly written game.
Your statements and reasoning to justify the starchild's logic are correct. My problem with the ending was never the logic of the kid, but how it was brought on.
Massive plot holes and a theme that was never shown or presented in the previous two games is thrown at us in the last 20 minutes of the game. That's my problem with the ending, along with the terrible cutscenes.
The indoctrination theory is good, but that's the thing, its a theory simply to explain an ending to a game. I'm a cut and dry type of person. I want to know what happens, not sit by thinking of ideas to justify a poorly written game.
#963
Posté 05 juin 2012 - 05:44
JShepppp
-
- Members
- 1 607 messages
Slayer299 wrote...
I read most of your OP, but to be honest my eyes actually started glazing over after a while and I usually read TLDR posts completely before replying. But what I did read seems to be trying very hard to make the SC make any sense is all.
A lot of it came about from ideas generated in this thread. But none of it's super-complicated or anything, just time-consuming. I apologize for the inconvenience though. Glad you still read the TLDR and hope you enjoyed at least a bit.
#964
Posté 05 juin 2012 - 05:46
JShepppp
-
- Members
- 1 607 messages
Kyle Kabanya wrote...
To the OP:
Your statements and reasoning to justify the starchild's logic are correct. My problem with the ending was never the logic of the kid, but how it was brought on.
Massive plot holes and a theme that was never shown or presented in the previous two games is thrown at us in the last 20 minutes of the game. That's my problem with the ending, along with the terrible cutscenes.
The indoctrination theory is good, but that's the thing, its a theory simply to explain an ending to a game. I'm a cut and dry type of person. I want to know what happens, not sit by thinking of ideas to justify a poorly written game.
I agree about the out of place stuff.
I'm amazed (in a good way) at the level of thought that's gone into IT. It's a testament to fan's love for the series. My only thing with it is that I have no idea how Shep can possibly defeat the Reapers afterwards, or how Shep can possibly survive afterwards (Reaper just flies by and obliterates him easily). But all of this, of course, remains to be seen.
#965
Posté 05 juin 2012 - 06:38
Lord Goose
-
- Members
- 865 messages
Wow, nice summary. While I'm mostly agree with you, I think you're not exactly correct.
Judging from Catalyst's conversation, idea about TS was thrown out of window. It was replaced with much simpler idea that synthetics would just destroy organics. That replacement actually made Catalyst's position weaker, because we clearly see that synthetic races are not always hostile towards organics.
In my opinion, where are two problems presented: omnicide of organics and harvest.
Destroy dismiss possibility of omnicide, and destroy the Reapers in renegade way (along with your allies). Harvest is over.
Control dissmiss possibility of omnicide, but ends harvest in Paragon way (saving your allies).
Its only in Synthesis this problem acknowledged.
Of course, everything goes in a wrong way, if geth are already dead. But I think it is rather result of rushed development.
First of all, Catalyst never said that Shepard would die in Destroy. If he meant that Shepard would die, he could just said that, as he did when he was talking about Control.
Secondly, I think it is amount of "synthetic life" which matters. Shepard isn't on constant life support, so if his implants would turn off, he still would live. Just as quarians. Reapers in turn seems to be synthetic and organic fused on very deep level. So, if their synthetic parts would die, organic parts wouldn't be able to continue living without them.
You can see it here.
THE CATALYST'S CONCLUSION: Synthetics will wipe out all organics after the naturally-occurring technological singularity.
Judging from Catalyst's conversation, idea about TS was thrown out of window. It was replaced with much simpler idea that synthetics would just destroy organics. That replacement actually made Catalyst's position weaker, because we clearly see that synthetic races are not always hostile towards organics.
Maybe that's just my opinion, but I think that in Control you can dissmis possible organic omnicide. Control actually has no advantages as itself. It's middle solution between destroying Reapers along with the geth, and doing something with the galactic population without consent.Control means you are unsure and/or undecided about the singularity.
In my opinion, where are two problems presented: omnicide of organics and harvest.
Destroy dismiss possibility of omnicide, and destroy the Reapers in renegade way (along with your allies). Harvest is over.
Control dissmiss possibility of omnicide, but ends harvest in Paragon way (saving your allies).
Its only in Synthesis this problem acknowledged.
Of course, everything goes in a wrong way, if geth are already dead. But I think it is rather result of rushed development.
I want to propose another option.Yet the N7 ending throws all of this into question, so I don't have an answer for this at all. But the point has arisen in the thread that the Crucible only targeted synthetic life of a certain advanced level, meaning synthetic implants (Shepard, biotics, etc.) wouldn't be destroyed but life on the level of the Geth, EDI, and the Reapers would.
First of all, Catalyst never said that Shepard would die in Destroy. If he meant that Shepard would die, he could just said that, as he did when he was talking about Control.
Secondly, I think it is amount of "synthetic life" which matters. Shepard isn't on constant life support, so if his implants would turn off, he still would live. Just as quarians. Reapers in turn seems to be synthetic and organic fused on very deep level. So, if their synthetic parts would die, organic parts wouldn't be able to continue living without them.
As far as I remember, throught the game term synthetic was not fixed term. For example, EDI was able to pass as Joker's personal synthetic assistant in ME3. In ME2, Citadel Security officer mistakes Legion for the same type of VI-driven machine too.It has also been pointed out that a Codex entry states that Shepard is NOT partly synthetic because in the ME universe, the word "synthetic" implies self-awarenes
You can see it here.
Modifié par Lord Goose, 05 juin 2012 - 06:39 .
#966
Posté 05 juin 2012 - 07:05
someguy1231
-
- Members
- 1 120 messages
This is one of the most pathetic apologies I've seen in a long time for the ending. Half of your points basically consist of "Yes, but..."s, and the other half are either irrelevant or based on faulty conjecture. All you've done is make the ending look even worse in my eyes.
Besides, as I've said elsewhere, if you need to explain why an ending is good, then it isn't. A good ending needs to be self-evident and need no explanation.
Besides, as I've said elsewhere, if you need to explain why an ending is good, then it isn't. A good ending needs to be self-evident and need no explanation.
#967
Posté 05 juin 2012 - 07:50
Masterfabulous
-
- Members
- 4 messages
It doesn't really matter if his logic is correct or not, it could be entirely fallacious and the ending could still be fulfilling. The problem is that this all-powerful character was introduced 10 minutes before the ending and completely changed the story. A whole bunch of new information was added at this time, contradictory to the things set beforehand or not.
Not only that, but what transpired in the last ten minutes of the game directly contradicts the themes of the narrative and the character of Shepard himself/herself. These games have been about constantly fighting against stronger forces, struggling to overcome adversity, and always finding solutions no matter how grim things may seem.
The ending takes all of that and flushes it down the crapper. Shepard just accepts everything the catalyst tells him and Shepard is under complete control basically, like he has completely given up and is resigned to his fate. THIS IS NOT SHEPARD, he would not give in at the very climax when he's face to face with the enemy he's been fighting all this time to defeat, yet he does so in this ending.
But even that could be acceptable if they would actually have events that lead up to this. There could be an all-powerful catalyst that shepard could resign his fate to, but no, there was nothing, no hint at this part of Shepard's character and no hint that there was an all-powerful entity, and no hint that such things could take place based on the themes of the narrative. This is why the ending is horrible and bad, it's not the logic of the catalyst, it's that the ending doesn't follow any theme of the narrative and craps on the whole story.
Not only that, but what transpired in the last ten minutes of the game directly contradicts the themes of the narrative and the character of Shepard himself/herself. These games have been about constantly fighting against stronger forces, struggling to overcome adversity, and always finding solutions no matter how grim things may seem.
The ending takes all of that and flushes it down the crapper. Shepard just accepts everything the catalyst tells him and Shepard is under complete control basically, like he has completely given up and is resigned to his fate. THIS IS NOT SHEPARD, he would not give in at the very climax when he's face to face with the enemy he's been fighting all this time to defeat, yet he does so in this ending.
But even that could be acceptable if they would actually have events that lead up to this. There could be an all-powerful catalyst that shepard could resign his fate to, but no, there was nothing, no hint at this part of Shepard's character and no hint that there was an all-powerful entity, and no hint that such things could take place based on the themes of the narrative. This is why the ending is horrible and bad, it's not the logic of the catalyst, it's that the ending doesn't follow any theme of the narrative and craps on the whole story.
#968
Posté 05 juin 2012 - 08:11
KingZayd
-
- Members
- 5 344 messages
the geth only started to rebel when they were told by sympathetic quarians to do so.
#969
Posté 05 juin 2012 - 08:13
Taboo
-
- Members
- 20 234 messages
I'm sorry, the Catalyst proposes an appeal to probability, which is a fallacy.
What makes it worse is that he doesn't at all take in any variables since he began Reaping millions of years ago.
His opinion is irrelevant. He isn't predicting anything.
What makes it worse is that he doesn't at all take in any variables since he began Reaping millions of years ago.
His opinion is irrelevant. He isn't predicting anything.
#970
Posté 05 juin 2012 - 08:14
Jadebaby
-
- Members
- 13 229 messages
wow, I wasn't aware that some people didn't know what the Catalyst said his reasons are... The fact of the matter is.. Do u believe him?
Personally I don't. So he can shove his technology singularity where the sun don't shine.
Yes.. Put it in a black hole.
edit: black hole sun... - coz it works -
Personally I don't. So he can shove his technology singularity where the sun don't shine.
Yes.. Put it in a black hole.
edit: black hole sun... - coz it works -
Modifié par Jade8aby88, 05 juin 2012 - 08:15 .
#972
Posté 07 juin 2012 - 01:07
Eluril
-
- Members
- 314 messages
This is by far the best discussion on this forum or really anywhere about the game. The Catalyst is essentially the greatest war criminal ever, being an extreme utilitarian who believes the sacrifice of millions and possibly billions of lives is justified for his ideal (the prevention of organics reaching the technological singularity.)
I think the most intriguing thing is asking what would cause a species or entity to believe this was justified? What would have had to happen? It or they must have witnessed something related to the singularity and decided it must be stopped.
I think the most intriguing thing is asking what would cause a species or entity to believe this was justified? What would have had to happen? It or they must have witnessed something related to the singularity and decided it must be stopped.
#973
Posté 10 juin 2012 - 02:38
JShepppp
-
- Members
- 1 607 messages
Lord Goose wrote...
Wow, nice summary. While I'm mostly agree with you, I think you're not exactly correct.THE CATALYST'S CONCLUSION: Synthetics will wipe out all organics after the naturally-occurring technological singularity.
Judging from Catalyst's conversation, idea about TS was thrown out of window. It was replaced with much simpler idea that synthetics would just destroy organics. That replacement actually made Catalyst's position weaker, because we clearly see that synthetic races are not always hostile towards organics.
Yeah, I agree. I used the leaked script to get the singularity and that was the basis for extrapolating from the current script. If there is no singularity, then the Catalyst becomes rather nonsensical and basic. This, I believe, was a problem with the current ending.
Maybe that's just my opinion, but I think that in Control you can dissmis possible organic omnicide. Control actually has no advantages as itself. It's middle solution between destroying Reapers along with the geth, and doing something with the galactic population without consent.Control means you are unsure and/or undecided about the singularity.
In my opinion, where are two problems presented: omnicide of organics and harvest.
I searched online for the word "omnicide" that you're using and found "domnicide" which means the killing of one's master; I couldn't find "omnicide". I THINK that's what you're trying to use the word to refer to - overall killing of organics by synthetics; mass killing of "masters". Apologies if this is not the case.
But yes, control is a middle solution. All endings are supposed to destroy the possibility of organic domnicide to a degree, and it is the middle ending with respect to the singularity.
Out of the two problems presented, I believed the domnicide one is the primary one while the harvest one is secondary. This is why the cycle continues when some races are not truly harvested (e.g. Protheans).
Destroy dismiss possibility of omnicide, and destroy the Reapers in renegade way (along with your allies). Harvest is over.
Control dissmiss possibility of omnicide, but ends harvest in Paragon way (saving your allies).
Its only in Synthesis this problem acknowledged.
Not sure what you mean by "this problem" because omnicide, as you said, is addressed by the non-synthesis endings as well, as are harvesting.
Harvesting is seen by Shepard and Co. to be the main problem, and all endings stop it.
Singularity (leading to domnicide) is the Catalyst's main problem, and the endings address it at different levels. I think the inability to distance the singularity idea from the Catalyst's character as the leader of the Reapers (e.g. not present it as a separate idea) takes away from its weight of affecting everything.
Of course, everything goes in a wrong way, if geth are already dead. But I think it is rather result of rushed development.
I want to propose another option.Yet the N7 ending throws all of this into question, so I don't have an answer for this at all. But the point has arisen in the thread that the Crucible only targeted synthetic life of a certain advanced level, meaning synthetic implants (Shepard, biotics, etc.) wouldn't be destroyed but life on the level of the Geth, EDI, and the Reapers would.
First of all, Catalyst never said that Shepard would die in Destroy. If he meant that Shepard would die, he could just said that, as he did when he was talking about Control.
I think he said that like even you, partly synthetic, will perish, or something like that.
Secondly, I think it is amount of "synthetic life" which matters. Shepard isn't on constant life support, so if his implants would turn off, he still would live. Just as quarians. Reapers in turn seems to be synthetic and organic fused on very deep level. So, if their synthetic parts would die, organic parts wouldn't be able to continue living without them.
As far as I remember, throught the game term synthetic was not fixed term. For example, EDI was able to pass as Joker's personal synthetic assistant in ME3. In ME2, Citadel Security officer mistakes Legion for the same type of VI-driven machine too.It has also been pointed out that a Codex entry states that Shepard is NOT partly synthetic because in the ME universe, the word "synthetic" implies self-awarenes
You can see it here.
Excellent point. It could be pushed on the Crucible's "development level" or something which is influenced by "EMS" and so a refined Crucib le would only kill more synthetic things, of which Shepard and Co. are not, but the Reapers still are, and so are obviously the Geth who are completely synthetic.
#974
Posté 10 juin 2012 - 02:42
JShepppp
-
- Members
- 1 607 messages
someguy1231 wrote...
This is one of the most pathetic apologies I've seen in a long time for the ending. Half of your points basically consist of "Yes, but..."s, and the other half are either irrelevant or based on faulty conjecture. All you've done is make the ending look even worse in my eyes.
Besides, as I've said elsewhere, if you need to explain why an ending is good, then it isn't. A good ending needs to be self-evident and need no explanation.
Not an apology for the ending, not saying whether the ending is good or bad. But feel free to rant about that.
#975
Posté 10 juin 2012 - 03:03
Cypher_CS
-
- Members
- 1 119 messages
Maybe he meant Omni as in All? Like the Omnitool - and all capable tool. Omniscient - all knowing. Etc'
Organic Omnicide - killing all organics?
Organic Omnicide - killing all organics?
