Vigilant111 wrote...
JShepppp wrote...
Lol Taboo. Anyways I kind of lied, have a bit of work. The update will be done by Sunday at the latest.
Tell your friends we are coming for them
Good reference lol
Why the Catalyst's Logic is Right (Technological Singularity)
Débuté par
JShepppp
, mars 29 2012 09:04
#1026
Posté 21 juin 2012 - 08:51
JShepppp
-
- Members
- 1 607 messages
Good reference lol
Retour en haut
#1027
Posté 21 juin 2012 - 10:08
ImCommanderShepard
-
- Members
- 59 messages
Why doesn't Star Child just indoctrinate all organics and prevent them from creating synthetics who according to him will inevitably rebel against their creators? Takes away free will but still better than turning everyone into goo.
#1028
Posté 22 juin 2012 - 05:34
JShepppp
-
- Members
- 1 607 messages
Updated it. Jesus, that took forever with the formatting. Apparently the pictures take up so much room that my original post got cut off so I had to shorten some parts. Hopefully the EC comes out soon. Later updates may (gasp) take out the pictures, though as others have noted, discussion may have died down a bit so that update may not be that long. It's late where I am so I'll bump tomorrow for the visibility.
I also put a bit at the top of the OP where I detailed what I updated.
I also put a bit at the top of the OP where I detailed what I updated.
#1029
Posté 22 juin 2012 - 05:35
Taboo
-
- Members
- 20 234 messages
I'll take a look tomorrow. Posting now to find it easier.
#1030
Posté 22 juin 2012 - 05:37
JShepppp
-
- Members
- 1 607 messages
At the very least, people can now say they liked the pictures if they hated the rest lol. But for you Taboo the fallacy isn't solved. But still, the pictures are at least nice to look at.
Also noticed a few grammar mistakes...but too lazy to change them right now.
Also noticed a few grammar mistakes...but too lazy to change them right now.
Modifié par JShepppp, 22 juin 2012 - 05:37 .
#1031
Posté 22 juin 2012 - 09:07
Vigilant111
-
- Members
- 2 383 messages
Counter-arguments of "Catalyst is right" thread
I. Catalyst's assumptions
Technological singularity is a myth
Catalyst assumes war is the only possibility
If synthetics really wanted to wipe the organics out they would have done so already, and the Geth did wipe the the Quarians out, and it was not due to singularity
How come you always assume singularity is a "good" thing for synthetics and such a "bad" thing for organics?
Where is the link between destruction of organics and singularity, there is no direct causal relationship here
II. The endings
Destroy has very little to do with singularity, BW could not possibly expect everyone of us to understand what technological singularity means, the issue of singularity was not referenced in game
We are not here to combat synthetics, we are here to combat the reapers, and why do we HAVE to combat synthetics? Why can't we just make peace?
III. Reaper preservation
What the reapers preserved was TRACES of individuals, not actual lives, those are lab samples only, not alive
(1) that is only the Catalyst's opinion, I cannot agree
The reapers are doing it wrong, the issue is that organics keep popping up, from what reapers' point view, the organics are pretty much screwed anyway, the reapers will suffer no loss if all organics are wiped out
IV.Common points against the Catalyst
1. The points u made are not evidence to support the Catalyst or reapers' actions, u r just repeating what the Catalyst says
2. The Catalyst made no reference to peace, the future is only bleak in its opinion
3. (a) correct, reapers have self-preserving interests, (
you are repeating previous points u made
4. Then why synthesis?
5. Beliefs, views...one against a million, organic/organic conflicts are none of Catalyst's problem
6. "Cannot comprehend" is just a fancy way of saying "I can't be bothered explaining"
7. Catalyst is NOT right, the things it said are contradictory
V. Points from this thread
2. It doesn't matter what they view, what matters is how WE view, we are not harbingers, we are not obliged to look at their way of life, we have our own lives to worry about
7. The worry is that organics disregard ethics when creating AIs
11. My view is that the reapers rebelled against their creators, and won
12. There is no way out for u, is there? if u say they are synthetics, then some people would say that their death is justified as they are just a bunch of killing machines; on the other hand, if u argue they are organic, then they should understand organics' ideals, way of life and the concept of justice, and most importantly, to be able to deceive
13. may I ask what gives the Catalyst the right to "deem" certain civilisations as expendable? cos it got guns?
14. the 2 cycles we observed were a POPULATION, NOT a sample, and we didn't really see organic/synthetic conflicts as a problem until the Catalyst told us so, the Catalyst did its own experiments based on SIMULATIONS, we have experience of our own, these are two SEPARATE things
27. There is no guarantee, some doubts must be maintained, u must examine the Catalyst's words critically
The reapers "reproduce" to help harvesting, NOT to ascend
34. organics were able to influence synthetics, reach a level of mutual understand, trust is developed
38. why do synthetics "evolve"? "evolve" and do WHAT?
41. The Catalyst is actually extremely vague, nothing is explicit
45. I thought the Catalyst doesn't care
I. Catalyst's assumptions
Technological singularity is a myth
Catalyst assumes war is the only possibility
If synthetics really wanted to wipe the organics out they would have done so already, and the Geth did wipe the the Quarians out, and it was not due to singularity
How come you always assume singularity is a "good" thing for synthetics and such a "bad" thing for organics?
Where is the link between destruction of organics and singularity, there is no direct causal relationship here
II. The endings
Destroy has very little to do with singularity, BW could not possibly expect everyone of us to understand what technological singularity means, the issue of singularity was not referenced in game
We are not here to combat synthetics, we are here to combat the reapers, and why do we HAVE to combat synthetics? Why can't we just make peace?
III. Reaper preservation
What the reapers preserved was TRACES of individuals, not actual lives, those are lab samples only, not alive
(1) that is only the Catalyst's opinion, I cannot agree
The reapers are doing it wrong, the issue is that organics keep popping up, from what reapers' point view, the organics are pretty much screwed anyway, the reapers will suffer no loss if all organics are wiped out
IV.Common points against the Catalyst
1. The points u made are not evidence to support the Catalyst or reapers' actions, u r just repeating what the Catalyst says
2. The Catalyst made no reference to peace, the future is only bleak in its opinion
3. (a) correct, reapers have self-preserving interests, (
you are repeating previous points u made4. Then why synthesis?
5. Beliefs, views...one against a million, organic/organic conflicts are none of Catalyst's problem
6. "Cannot comprehend" is just a fancy way of saying "I can't be bothered explaining"
7. Catalyst is NOT right, the things it said are contradictory
V. Points from this thread
2. It doesn't matter what they view, what matters is how WE view, we are not harbingers, we are not obliged to look at their way of life, we have our own lives to worry about
7. The worry is that organics disregard ethics when creating AIs
11. My view is that the reapers rebelled against their creators, and won
12. There is no way out for u, is there? if u say they are synthetics, then some people would say that their death is justified as they are just a bunch of killing machines; on the other hand, if u argue they are organic, then they should understand organics' ideals, way of life and the concept of justice, and most importantly, to be able to deceive
13. may I ask what gives the Catalyst the right to "deem" certain civilisations as expendable? cos it got guns?
14. the 2 cycles we observed were a POPULATION, NOT a sample, and we didn't really see organic/synthetic conflicts as a problem until the Catalyst told us so, the Catalyst did its own experiments based on SIMULATIONS, we have experience of our own, these are two SEPARATE things
27. There is no guarantee, some doubts must be maintained, u must examine the Catalyst's words critically
The reapers "reproduce" to help harvesting, NOT to ascend
34. organics were able to influence synthetics, reach a level of mutual understand, trust is developed
38. why do synthetics "evolve"? "evolve" and do WHAT?
41. The Catalyst is actually extremely vague, nothing is explicit
45. I thought the Catalyst doesn't care
Modifié par Vigilant111, 22 juin 2012 - 12:15 .
#1032
Posté 22 juin 2012 - 10:32
B3ckett
-
- Members
- 666 messages
Well, I've seen that Catalyst's assumption about synthetics overwhelming organics is completely true:
#1033
Posté 22 juin 2012 - 11:29
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 174 messages
To those who say that the Catalyst can't be right because it can't possibly have data about the consequences of a singularity that hasn't happened:
Not true. Here's an analogy: we have never experienced a big asteroid crashing on Earth. Nonetheless, we have a very good idea of the consequences of such a crash. We have that idea because we can calculate, simulate and extrapolate. We may not be 100% correct, we may even be an order of magnitude off about the loss of life it causes, but in the face of the size of such an event these inaccuracies don't matter all that much. We'd still be well-advised to do our utmost to prevent it from happening.
In a similar way, the Catalyst may be able to extrapolate the development of organic civilizations and the consequences of a singularity event. It is important to consider that a singularity is not intrinsically incomprehensible. It's just that its consequences can't be understood by human-level intelligence. The Catalyst is supposed to be more intelligent. If its predictions say "It's 99% likely that all developed organic civilizations in the galaxy will be destroyed 20000 years after the first singularity event, and no new ones will be allowed to arise", it doesn't really matter if that prediction is off by 10000 years in either direction. Trying to prevent it from happening is still a very good idea from the perspective of organics.
Not true. Here's an analogy: we have never experienced a big asteroid crashing on Earth. Nonetheless, we have a very good idea of the consequences of such a crash. We have that idea because we can calculate, simulate and extrapolate. We may not be 100% correct, we may even be an order of magnitude off about the loss of life it causes, but in the face of the size of such an event these inaccuracies don't matter all that much. We'd still be well-advised to do our utmost to prevent it from happening.
In a similar way, the Catalyst may be able to extrapolate the development of organic civilizations and the consequences of a singularity event. It is important to consider that a singularity is not intrinsically incomprehensible. It's just that its consequences can't be understood by human-level intelligence. The Catalyst is supposed to be more intelligent. If its predictions say "It's 99% likely that all developed organic civilizations in the galaxy will be destroyed 20000 years after the first singularity event, and no new ones will be allowed to arise", it doesn't really matter if that prediction is off by 10000 years in either direction. Trying to prevent it from happening is still a very good idea from the perspective of organics.
#1034
Posté 22 juin 2012 - 11:41
Vigilant111
-
- Members
- 2 383 messages
Ieldra2 wrote...
To those who say that the Catalyst can't be right because it can't possibly have data about the consequences of a singularity that hasn't happened:
Not true. Here's an analogy: we have never experienced a big asteroid crashing on Earth. Nonetheless, we have a very good idea of the consequences of such a crash. We have that idea because we can calculate, simulate and extrapolate. We may not be 100% correct, we may even be an order of magnitude off about the loss of life it causes, but in the face of the size of such an event these inaccuracies don't matter all that much. We'd still be well-advised to do our utmost to prevent it from happening.
In a similar way, the Catalyst may be able to extrapolate the development of organic civilizations and the consequences of a singularity event. It is important to consider that a singularity is not intrinsically incomprehensible. It's just that its consequences can't be understood by human-level intelligence. The Catalyst is supposed to be more intelligent. If its predictions say "It's 99% likely that all developed organic civilizations in the galaxy will be destroyed 20000 years after the first singularity event, and no new ones will be allowed to arise", it doesn't really matter if that prediction is off by 10000 years in either direction. Trying to prevent it from happening is still a very good idea from the perspective of organics.
Not true, do u know how wrong it is to extrapolate things?
Didn't u say that the consequences of singularity is organics wiped off the face of the galaxy? How incomprehensable can that be???
Singularity is much more complicated then asteroid hitting earth, there are way too many variables
There is no new development from your argument "you cannot prove it but you cannot disapprove it either", critical mission failure, please try again;)
#1035
Posté 22 juin 2012 - 11:57
AngryFrozenWater
-
- Members
- 9 009 messages
The difference between an asteroid hitting Earth and that "threat" is that at some point we can pick it up with telescopes; on the other hand, the technical singularity is a hypothetical threat and even Gordon Moore, the one responsible for Moore's Law which is often cited in support of the idea, disputes its plausibility.Ieldra2 wrote...
To those who say that the Catalyst can't be right because it can't possibly have data about the consequences of a singularity that hasn't happened:
Not true. Here's an analogy: we have never experienced a big asteroid crashing on Earth. Nonetheless, we have a very good idea of the consequences of such a crash. We have that idea because we can calculate, simulate and extrapolate. We may not be 100% correct, we may even be an order of magnitude off about the loss of life it causes, but in the face of the size of such an event these inaccuracies don't matter all that much. We'd still be well-advised to do our utmost to prevent it from happening.
In a similar way, the Catalyst may be able to extrapolate the development of organic civilizations and the consequences of a singularity event. It is important to consider that a singularity is not intrinsically incomprehensible. It's just that its consequences can't be understood by human-level intelligence. The Catalyst is supposed to be more intelligent. If its predictions say "It's 99% likely that all developed organic civilizations in the galaxy will be destroyed 20000 years after the first singularity event, and no new ones will be allowed to arise", it doesn't really matter if that prediction is off by 10000 years in either direction. Trying to prevent it from happening is still a very good idea from the perspective of organics.
And please, stop dreaming up stuff that's not in the game and present that as truth.
You also misunderstand what humanity can comprehend. Your argument that the brat and the reapers are far more intelligent and thus they can understand that hypothetical threat way better than organics is elitist nonsense. Earlier in the franchise the reaper's motives were unknown and one could only guess. That is OK. In that part of the game they may have reasons that we mere mortals cannot understand. But once these motives have been revealed it is very easy to understand their cyclical maniacal genocidal reproduction methods which are using the most horrific ways to keep them on top of the food chain. It is obvious that the hypothetical threat of synthetics dominating organics is used as a rationalization that serves no one, but the reapers. It is also easy to understand that exterminating organics to prevent them creating synthetics who will always try to exterminate organics is cyclical logic and counterproductive. "Ascension through destruction" is the reapers' trademark which has caused more harm to organics than synthetics ever can inflict.
Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 22 juin 2012 - 12:09 .
#1036
Posté 22 juin 2012 - 01:20
PoorBleedingMe
-
- Members
- 29 messages
AngryFrozenWater wrote...
"Ascension through destruction" is the reapers' trademark which has caused more harm to organics than synthetics ever can inflict.
Wrong. The Reapers destroyed only those, who failed to achieve what only Shepard did.
He allowed the Cuicible to be built and actually used it. He confronted the Reapers, passed the 'Indoctrination Test' (killed the Illusive Man whom I see as a 'seed of indoctrination' in Shepard's mind) and proved to be worthy of using his DNA as a matrix for rewriting all organisms in the Galaxy, ultimately making them Reapers (mind you, in the outro even trees are semi-synthetic, which means all living organism became Reapers when Shepard chose the Synthesis option).
Unfortunately for the Reapers, new 'future paths' were added to the Crucible (probably by the Protheans who modified the blueprints), so that the Reapers could be destroyed. The Catalyst manipulates Shepard to choose the Synthesis option as this was what the Reapers wanted from the very beginning - find the Chosen One, who could serve as a basis for rewreting all organic life into Reaper-like-organisms.
#1037
Posté 22 juin 2012 - 01:25
Cypher_CS
-
- Members
- 1 119 messages
[quote]Vigilant111 wrote...
Technological singularity is a myth
[/quote]
That's just a random assertion.
This statement is no better than saying "I know you are, but what am I?".
Why do you think a TS is a myth? Please, elaborate if you are going to use it as a counter point.
The above not withstanding, how is it even relevant to the issue?
JShepp presents base assumptions that drive the Catalyst's motives (to his understanding). He doesn't assert those assumptions are correct, false or even likely. He simply talks about the motivations, or, rather, causations.
If someone assumes there's a vengeful God, you can't just go "God's a myth" as a counter point to the need to pray. Because he assumes the existence in the base of all his actions.
You can use "God's a myth" to persuade him that he doesn't. But not to explain the reasoning itself away.
[quote] Vigilant111...
Catalyst assumes war is the only possibility
[/quote]
No. It does not.
It assumes a TS. It doesn't talk about possibilities of war and peace, only the final, the end outcome of the Wager.
The TS theory, by it's nature, is a Prudential one. Thus giving rise to the Nonzero probabilities.
Given those nonzero probabilities and their utilities, the final Expectation - methematical calculation of the Expectation - results in something unfavorable for organic life.
[quote] Vigilant111
If synthetics really wanted to wipe the organics out they would have done so already, and the Geth did wipe the the Quarians out, and it was not due to singularity
[/quote]
a. It's not about wanting to do anything.
b. Geth did not wipe the Quarians out.
c. No one has every argued that Synthetic led Genocide can only happen with a TS.
... A Square is a Rectangle, but a Rectangle isn't necessarily a Square...
[quote] Vigilant111
How come you always assume singularity is a "good" thing for synthetics and such a "bad" thing for organics?
[/quote]
Where was such an assumption uttered or stated?
It really isn't about good or bad, only invariability.
[quote]Vigilant111
Where is the link between destruction of organics and singularity, there is no direct causal relationship here
[/quote]
Sure, in ME we don't talk about that.
But I believe the OP stated, in the foreword, that he isn't discussing how well it was written, only the underlying possible causalities.
Given that, we are left with understanding the TS theory on our own. In which case there is plenty of linking between the TS and the destruction of organics.
[quote]Vigilant111
Destroy has very little to do with singularity, BW could not possibly expect everyone of us to understand what technological singularity means, the issue of singularity was not referenced in game
[/quote]
Do you mean to say that because BW could not possible expect everyone of us to understand what TS means, then Destroy has very little to do with Singularity?
Because that's how you wrote it... More or less saying that Tomatos are Red because the Rain in Spain stays mainly in the Plain.
Especially given the fact that the OP has already stated that he draws from the leaked Script and his own extrapolations to reach some of his conclusions. Basically nullifying your "was not referenced in the game" statement - cause he already stated that himself.
[quote]Vigilant111
We are not here to combat synthetics, we are here to combat the reapers, and why do we HAVE to combat synthetics? Why can't we just make peace?
[/quote]
He explained countless times why we can't make peace. Or, rather, that we can make peace, but considering the nonzero probabilities of both War and Peace, it will not last. Just as it won't last between two Organic factions. War will always come. Question is, which side will win and what that win would entail to the losing side.
[quote]Vigilant111
What the reapers preserved was TRACES of individuals, not actual lives, those are lab samples only, not alive
[/quote]
Again, just like with the first point (TS is a Myth) - it doesn't matter what your moral understanding of it is, we are talking about the causes, the "motives" of the Catalyst. What it believes are solutions.
Sure, I agree that morally those solutions are abhorrent. But they are still rooted in causality, in a reason.
[quote]Vigilant111
(1) that is only the Catalyst's opinion, I cannot agree[/quote]
That's your prerogative.
But it's not a counterpoint to the Catalyst.
[quote]Vigilant111
The reapers are doing it wrong, the issue is that organics keep popping up, from what reapers' point view, the organics are pretty much screwed anyway, the reapers will suffer no loss if all organics are wiped out
[/quote]
No. All you know is that their reason for the Cycle is to keep the Organic chaos alive. Keep it cycling.
You, and all of us, still don't know the WHY do they care? That is never to
[quote]Vigilant111
1. The points u made are not evidence to support the Catalyst or reapers' actions, u r just repeating what the Catalyst says
[/quote]
...Seriously?
He's repeating the very reasons the Catalyst states. How is that not "evidence" of what the Catalyst actually wants?
Again, this isn't about morals.
JShepp answers a pseudo contradiction of using Synths to kill Orgs to prevent them from creating Synths that would whipe them all out by using that statement that clearly shows that the Reapers are NOT, in fact, fully Synths.
How is that not evidence to debunk the proposed counter argument?
Again, this isn't about morals. It's not about supporting or condoning actions. Only understanding the reason.
[quote]Vigilant111
2. The Catalyst made no reference to peace, the future is only bleak in its opinion[/quote]
Again, TS and Leaked Script....
[quote]Vigilant111
3. (a) correct, reapers have self-preserving interests, ( you are repeating previous points u made
[/quote]
(a) Incorrect - you can't know if those interest are self preserving (which they might very well be) or preserving only the Cycle. Cause, without the Reapers, again according to the Catalyst's reasoning, the TS will happen and no Organics will remain. So it can be either or both.
( So? It's a section he dedicated to answering point made (and repeated several times) in an attempt to debunk his theory. So what?
[quote]Vigilant111
4. Then why synthesis?
[/quote]
I personally disagree with his entire answer to that.
To me it seems more like the Catalyst couldn't break of it's infinite loop that drives it's Cycles reasoning.
The Crucible introduced new variables and broke the Loop. Hence Synthesis - it was never an option before.
[quote]Vigilant111
5. Beliefs, views...one against a million, organic/organic conflicts are none of Catalyst's problem
[/quote]
Your point here?
[quote]Vigilant111
6. "Cannot comprehend" is just a fancy way of saying "I can't be bothered explaining"
[/quote]
How is that even a counter argument to the OP? It goes side by side with what he wrote.
[quote]Vigilant111
7. Catalyst is NOT right, the things it said are contradictory
[/quote]
Again with the "I know you are" equivalent?
What was it that was contradictory?
[quote]Vigilant111
2. It doesn't matter what they view, what matters is how WE view, we are not harbingers, we are not obliged to look at their way of life, we have our own lives to worry about
[/quote]
Way to miss the whole point of the topic.
He stated, like a thousand times, that the topic is not about Moral judgement, only about understanding HOW they might think. For that we DO have to look at their way of viewing things.
To know thine enemy and all that....
[quote]Vigilant111
7. The worry is that organics disregard ethics when creating AIs
[/quote]
How so?
With all due respect to the Four Laws of Robotics...
Scratch that, even the development of the Zeroth Law is your first great leap towards a TS.
Daneel basically came itself to the conclusion that this law must exist and it superceeds the original Three Laws. It wasn't added there by a human, but Daneel itself reasoned it.
It's the law that drives Asimov's fictionverse to create the Foundation and Other Foundation - basically a control system, a subjugation system.
To take an extreme leap here, there might come another robot in the future of that universe who might decided that the best way to protect all of humanity is simply to put them all to sleep, preserve it cryogenically.
ALL OF THEM!
So... ethics or no ethics, there lots more at stake here than just that.
And, again, not a counter point to the OP.
[quote]Vigilant111
12. There is no way out for u, is there? if u say they are synthetics, then some people would say that their death is justified as they are just a bunch of killing machines; on the other hand, if u argue they are organic, then they should understand organics' ideals, way of life and the concept of justice, and most importantly, to be able to deceive
[/quote]
Your point being? He acknoledges problematic writing... or loop holes. What's your point?
[quote]Vigilant111
13. may I ask what gives the Catalyst the right to "deem" certain civilisations as expendable? cos it got guns?
[/quote]
No, you may NOT ask that.
Why? Because, for the thousand and oneth time - it's not about Morals.
[quote]Vigilant111
14. the 2 cycles we observed were a POPULATION, NOT a sample, and we didn't really see organic/synthetic conflicts as a problem until the Catalyst told us so, the Catalyst did its own experiments based on SIMULATIONS, we have experience of our own, these are two SEPARATE things
[/quote]
.....
No, those are samples. NOT population.
Population would be data concerning the whole of the Billion years and all Cycles therein.
[quote]Vigilant111
The reapers "reproduce" to help harvesting, NOT to ascend
[/quote]
How does that make sense?
[quote]Vigilant111
34. organics were able to influence synthetics, reach a level of mutual understand, trust is developed
[/quote]
Again...
Sample - not population. In this case, the statistics is on decisions in infinite time.
We don't have the population data.
To put it simple, just cause we won a battle, doesn't mean we won the war....
[quote]Vigilant111
45. I thought the Catalyst doesn't care
[/quote]
It doesn't... except for when they all just die like the people on Miranda....
And then... well, it just killed everything.
__________________
Sorry, but I fail to see how you consider these poitns of yours as counter arguments to the OP.
Technological singularity is a myth
[/quote]
That's just a random assertion.
This statement is no better than saying "I know you are, but what am I?".
Why do you think a TS is a myth? Please, elaborate if you are going to use it as a counter point.
The above not withstanding, how is it even relevant to the issue?
JShepp presents base assumptions that drive the Catalyst's motives (to his understanding). He doesn't assert those assumptions are correct, false or even likely. He simply talks about the motivations, or, rather, causations.
If someone assumes there's a vengeful God, you can't just go "God's a myth" as a counter point to the need to pray. Because he assumes the existence in the base of all his actions.
You can use "God's a myth" to persuade him that he doesn't. But not to explain the reasoning itself away.
[quote] Vigilant111...
Catalyst assumes war is the only possibility
[/quote]
No. It does not.
It assumes a TS. It doesn't talk about possibilities of war and peace, only the final, the end outcome of the Wager.
The TS theory, by it's nature, is a Prudential one. Thus giving rise to the Nonzero probabilities.
Given those nonzero probabilities and their utilities, the final Expectation - methematical calculation of the Expectation - results in something unfavorable for organic life.
[quote] Vigilant111
If synthetics really wanted to wipe the organics out they would have done so already, and the Geth did wipe the the Quarians out, and it was not due to singularity
[/quote]
a. It's not about wanting to do anything.
b. Geth did not wipe the Quarians out.
c. No one has every argued that Synthetic led Genocide can only happen with a TS.
... A Square is a Rectangle, but a Rectangle isn't necessarily a Square...
[quote] Vigilant111
How come you always assume singularity is a "good" thing for synthetics and such a "bad" thing for organics?
[/quote]
Where was such an assumption uttered or stated?
It really isn't about good or bad, only invariability.
[quote]Vigilant111
Where is the link between destruction of organics and singularity, there is no direct causal relationship here
[/quote]
Sure, in ME we don't talk about that.
But I believe the OP stated, in the foreword, that he isn't discussing how well it was written, only the underlying possible causalities.
Given that, we are left with understanding the TS theory on our own. In which case there is plenty of linking between the TS and the destruction of organics.
[quote]Vigilant111
Destroy has very little to do with singularity, BW could not possibly expect everyone of us to understand what technological singularity means, the issue of singularity was not referenced in game
[/quote]
Do you mean to say that because BW could not possible expect everyone of us to understand what TS means, then Destroy has very little to do with Singularity?
Because that's how you wrote it... More or less saying that Tomatos are Red because the Rain in Spain stays mainly in the Plain.
Especially given the fact that the OP has already stated that he draws from the leaked Script and his own extrapolations to reach some of his conclusions. Basically nullifying your "was not referenced in the game" statement - cause he already stated that himself.
[quote]Vigilant111
We are not here to combat synthetics, we are here to combat the reapers, and why do we HAVE to combat synthetics? Why can't we just make peace?
[/quote]
He explained countless times why we can't make peace. Or, rather, that we can make peace, but considering the nonzero probabilities of both War and Peace, it will not last. Just as it won't last between two Organic factions. War will always come. Question is, which side will win and what that win would entail to the losing side.
[quote]Vigilant111
What the reapers preserved was TRACES of individuals, not actual lives, those are lab samples only, not alive
[/quote]
Again, just like with the first point (TS is a Myth) - it doesn't matter what your moral understanding of it is, we are talking about the causes, the "motives" of the Catalyst. What it believes are solutions.
Sure, I agree that morally those solutions are abhorrent. But they are still rooted in causality, in a reason.
[quote]Vigilant111
(1) that is only the Catalyst's opinion, I cannot agree[/quote]
That's your prerogative.
But it's not a counterpoint to the Catalyst.
[quote]Vigilant111
The reapers are doing it wrong, the issue is that organics keep popping up, from what reapers' point view, the organics are pretty much screwed anyway, the reapers will suffer no loss if all organics are wiped out
[/quote]
No. All you know is that their reason for the Cycle is to keep the Organic chaos alive. Keep it cycling.
You, and all of us, still don't know the WHY do they care? That is never to
[quote]Vigilant111
1. The points u made are not evidence to support the Catalyst or reapers' actions, u r just repeating what the Catalyst says
[/quote]
...Seriously?
He's repeating the very reasons the Catalyst states. How is that not "evidence" of what the Catalyst actually wants?
Again, this isn't about morals.
JShepp answers a pseudo contradiction of using Synths to kill Orgs to prevent them from creating Synths that would whipe them all out by using that statement that clearly shows that the Reapers are NOT, in fact, fully Synths.
How is that not evidence to debunk the proposed counter argument?
Again, this isn't about morals. It's not about supporting or condoning actions. Only understanding the reason.
[quote]Vigilant111
2. The Catalyst made no reference to peace, the future is only bleak in its opinion[/quote]
Again, TS and Leaked Script....
[quote]Vigilant111
3. (a) correct, reapers have self-preserving interests, (
you are repeating previous points u made[/quote]
(a) Incorrect - you can't know if those interest are self preserving (which they might very well be) or preserving only the Cycle. Cause, without the Reapers, again according to the Catalyst's reasoning, the TS will happen and no Organics will remain. So it can be either or both.
(
So? It's a section he dedicated to answering point made (and repeated several times) in an attempt to debunk his theory. So what?[quote]Vigilant111
4. Then why synthesis?
[/quote]
I personally disagree with his entire answer to that.
To me it seems more like the Catalyst couldn't break of it's infinite loop that drives it's Cycles reasoning.
The Crucible introduced new variables and broke the Loop. Hence Synthesis - it was never an option before.
[quote]Vigilant111
5. Beliefs, views...one against a million, organic/organic conflicts are none of Catalyst's problem
[/quote]
Your point here?
[quote]Vigilant111
6. "Cannot comprehend" is just a fancy way of saying "I can't be bothered explaining"
[/quote]
How is that even a counter argument to the OP? It goes side by side with what he wrote.
[quote]Vigilant111
7. Catalyst is NOT right, the things it said are contradictory
[/quote]
Again with the "I know you are" equivalent?
What was it that was contradictory?
[quote]Vigilant111
2. It doesn't matter what they view, what matters is how WE view, we are not harbingers, we are not obliged to look at their way of life, we have our own lives to worry about
[/quote]
Way to miss the whole point of the topic.
He stated, like a thousand times, that the topic is not about Moral judgement, only about understanding HOW they might think. For that we DO have to look at their way of viewing things.
To know thine enemy and all that....
[quote]Vigilant111
7. The worry is that organics disregard ethics when creating AIs
[/quote]
How so?
With all due respect to the Four Laws of Robotics...
Scratch that, even the development of the Zeroth Law is your first great leap towards a TS.
Daneel basically came itself to the conclusion that this law must exist and it superceeds the original Three Laws. It wasn't added there by a human, but Daneel itself reasoned it.
It's the law that drives Asimov's fictionverse to create the Foundation and Other Foundation - basically a control system, a subjugation system.
To take an extreme leap here, there might come another robot in the future of that universe who might decided that the best way to protect all of humanity is simply to put them all to sleep, preserve it cryogenically.
ALL OF THEM!
So... ethics or no ethics, there lots more at stake here than just that.
And, again, not a counter point to the OP.
[quote]Vigilant111
12. There is no way out for u, is there? if u say they are synthetics, then some people would say that their death is justified as they are just a bunch of killing machines; on the other hand, if u argue they are organic, then they should understand organics' ideals, way of life and the concept of justice, and most importantly, to be able to deceive
[/quote]
Your point being? He acknoledges problematic writing... or loop holes. What's your point?
[quote]Vigilant111
13. may I ask what gives the Catalyst the right to "deem" certain civilisations as expendable? cos it got guns?
[/quote]
No, you may NOT ask that.
Why? Because, for the thousand and oneth time - it's not about Morals.
[quote]Vigilant111
14. the 2 cycles we observed were a POPULATION, NOT a sample, and we didn't really see organic/synthetic conflicts as a problem until the Catalyst told us so, the Catalyst did its own experiments based on SIMULATIONS, we have experience of our own, these are two SEPARATE things
[/quote]
.....
No, those are samples. NOT population.
Population would be data concerning the whole of the Billion years and all Cycles therein.
[quote]Vigilant111
The reapers "reproduce" to help harvesting, NOT to ascend
[/quote]
How does that make sense?
[quote]Vigilant111
34. organics were able to influence synthetics, reach a level of mutual understand, trust is developed
[/quote]
Again...
Sample - not population. In this case, the statistics is on decisions in infinite time.
We don't have the population data.
To put it simple, just cause we won a battle, doesn't mean we won the war....
[quote]Vigilant111
45. I thought the Catalyst doesn't care
[/quote]
It doesn't... except for when they all just die like the people on Miranda....
And then... well, it just killed everything.
__________________
Sorry, but I fail to see how you consider these poitns of yours as counter arguments to the OP.
Modifié par Cypher_CS, 22 juin 2012 - 01:31 .
#1038
Posté 22 juin 2012 - 01:26
The Night Mammoth
-
- Members
- 7 476 messages
Ieldra2 wrote...
To those who say that the Catalyst can't be right because it can't possibly have data about the consequences of a singularity that hasn't happened:
Not true. Here's an analogy: we have never experienced a big asteroid crashing on Earth. Nonetheless, we have a very good idea of the consequences of such a crash. We have that idea because we can calculate, simulate and extrapolate. We may not be 100% correct, we may even be an order of magnitude off about the loss of life it causes, but in the face of the size of such an event these inaccuracies don't matter all that much. We'd still be well-advised to do our utmost to prevent it from happening.
In a similar way, the Catalyst may be able to extrapolate the development of organic civilizations and the consequences of a singularity event. It is important to consider that a singularity is not intrinsically incomprehensible. It's just that its consequences can't be understood by human-level intelligence. The Catalyst is supposed to be more intelligent. If its predictions say "It's 99% likely that all developed organic civilizations in the galaxy will be destroyed 20000 years after the first singularity event, and no new ones will be allowed to arise", it doesn't really matter if that prediction is off by 10000 years in either direction. Trying to prevent it from happening is still a very good idea from the perspective of organics.
That definition of a singularity is your own, not factual. Singularity in this context does not have a definition other than 'a point which can't be predicted past'.
You've added the 'by humans' part with literally no basis for it.
Yet again, attempts to 'prove the Catalyst right' aren't based on the game's facts, but on people's headcanon chain of events.
Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 22 juin 2012 - 01:27 .
#1039
Posté 22 juin 2012 - 01:49
Shaigunjoe
-
- Members
- 925 messages
The Night Mammoth wrote...
That definition of a singularity is your own, not factual. Singularity in this context does not have a definition other than 'a point which can't be predicted past'.
You've added the 'by humans' part with literally no basis for it.
Yet again, attempts to 'prove the Catalyst right' aren't based on the game's facts, but on people's headcanon chain of events.
Ieldra2's definition is correct, the singularity is defined by humans, ergo it is defined by human level intelligence. You forget that Mass Effect is a game made by humans. To broach the subject in a game and treat the risk of a singularity with the respect it deserves you would not be able to explain it to your audience, much less yourself. There is a possibility that the catalyst has been there, and knows what happens. I'm not saying that this is definitly the case, but it is a possibility and there is no reasonable proof to dismiss it outright.
Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 22 juin 2012 - 01:49 .
#1040
Posté 22 juin 2012 - 02:39
The Night Mammoth
-
- Members
- 7 476 messages
Shaigunjoe wrote...
The Night Mammoth wrote...
That definition of a singularity is your own, not factual. Singularity in this context does not have a definition other than 'a point which can't be predicted past'.
You've added the 'by humans' part with literally no basis for it.
Yet again, attempts to 'prove the Catalyst right' aren't based on the game's facts, but on people's headcanon chain of events.
Ieldra2's definition is correct, the singularity is defined by humans, ergo it is defined by human level intelligence. You forget that Mass Effect is a game made by humans.
That's called a 'leap of logic'.
Attaching the 'by humans' part is not factual, it's your own imagination.
That view holds no water.
To broach the subject in a game and treat the risk of a singularity with the respect it deserves you would not be able to explain it to your audience, much less yourself.
Wha.......
I have no idea what that means. It's very easy to provide a proper premise for it being a threat. This thread and several others, Iedra2's among them, are somewhat proof of that.
BioWare did not provide that.
There is a possibility that the catalyst has been there, and knows what happens. I'm not saying that this is definitly the case, but it is a possibility and there is no reasonable proof to dismiss it outright.
I can dismiss by acknowledging two important aspects of it's statements.
One - it makes no sense at all. It's logically flawed.
Two - no proof or evidence is provided to even start speculating that it's a possibility, and that's before you consider whether it's a 'threat' to organic existence, which is a literal impossibility.
#1042
Posté 22 juin 2012 - 02:54
Shaigunjoe
-
- Members
- 925 messages
The Night Mammoth wrote...
Shaigunjoe wrote...
The Night Mammoth wrote...
That definition of a singularity is your own, not factual. Singularity in this context does not have a definition other than 'a point which can't be predicted past'.
You've added the 'by humans' part with literally no basis for it.
Yet again, attempts to 'prove the Catalyst right' aren't based on the game's facts, but on people's headcanon chain of events.
Ieldra2's definition is correct, the singularity is defined by humans, ergo it is defined by human level intelligence. You forget that Mass Effect is a game made by humans.
That's called a 'leap of logic'.
Attaching the 'by humans' part is not factual, it's your own imagination.
That view holds no water.To broach the subject in a game and treat the risk of a singularity with the respect it deserves you would not be able to explain it to your audience, much less yourself.
Wha.......
I have no idea what that means. It's very easy to provide a proper premise for it being a threat. This thread and several others, Iedra2's among them, are somewhat proof of that.
BioWare did not provide that.There is a possibility that the catalyst has been there, and knows what happens. I'm not saying that this is definitly the case, but it is a possibility and there is no reasonable proof to dismiss it outright.
I can dismiss by acknowledging two important aspects of it's statements.
One - it makes no sense at all. It's logically flawed.
Two - no proof or evidence is provided to even start speculating that it's a possibility, and that's before you consider whether it's a 'threat' to organic existence, which is a literal impossibility.
First you need to explain how my definition of singularity is a leap of logic, you can start by explaining who defined what a singularity is in the first place.
If you are unsure, the two points you spell out at the end of your post are leaps of logic as far as supporting your point is concerned. In fact, then it would point to the opposite. I would imagine that if you were presented with a result of a singularity it would 'make no sense' to you.
Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 22 juin 2012 - 03:34 .
#1043
Posté 22 juin 2012 - 03:15
AngryFrozenWater
-
- Members
- 9 009 messages
The numerous cycles say hi.PoorBleedingMe wrote...
AngryFrozenWater wrote...
"Ascension through destruction" is the reapers' trademark which has caused more harm to organics than synthetics ever can inflict.
Wrong. The Reapers destroyed only those, who failed to achieve what only Shepard did.
He allowed the Cuicible to be built and actually used it. He confronted the Reapers, passed the 'Indoctrination Test' (killed the Illusive Man whom I see as a 'seed of indoctrination' in Shepard's mind) and proved to be worthy of using his DNA as a matrix for rewriting all organisms in the Galaxy, ultimately making them Reapers (mind you, in the outro even trees are semi-synthetic, which means all living organism became Reapers when Shepard chose the Synthesis option).
Unfortunately for the Reapers, new 'future paths' were added to the Crucible (probably by the Protheans who modified the blueprints), so that the Reapers could be destroyed. The Catalyst manipulates Shepard to choose the Synthesis option as this was what the Reapers wanted from the very beginning - find the Chosen One, who could serve as a basis for rewreting all organic life into Reaper-like-organisms.
#1044
Posté 22 juin 2012 - 04:04
Vigilant111
-
- Members
- 2 383 messages
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote] Vigilant111 wrote...
Technological singularity is a myth [/quote]
That's just a random assertion.
This statement is no better than saying "I know you are, but what am I?".
Why do you think a TS is a myth? Please, elaborate if you are going to use it as a counter point.
The above not withstanding, how is it even relevant to the issue?
JShepp presents base assumptions that drive the Catalyst's motives (to his understanding). He doesn't assert those assumptions are correct, false or even likely. He simply talks about the motivations, or, rather, causations.
If someone assumes there's a vengeful God, you can't just go "God's a myth" as a counter point to the need to pray. Because he assumes the existence in the base of all his actions.
You can use "God's a myth" to persuade him that he doesn't. But not to explain the reasoning itself away. [/quote]
Technological change does not accelarate forever, any technological advancement must be a response to change, it cannot just happen in random fashion, you do not self-modify for nothing, and the stimulus for change rests in interation with organics, and eventually the stimulus will die down as the purposes for change had been fulfilled
It is a myth because there is no evidence for it, there are always things that can be done to stop this so-called singularity
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote] Vigilant111...
Catalyst assumes war is the only possibility
[/quote]
No. It does not.
It assumes a TS. It doesn't talk about possibilities of war and peace, only the final, the end outcome of the Wager.
The TS theory, by it's nature, is a Prudential one. Thus giving rise to the Nonzero probabilities.
Given those nonzero probabilities and their utilities, the final Expectation - methematical calculation of the Expectation - results in something unfavorable for organic life. [/quote]
Yes, the Catalyst specifically said "the created will always rebel against their creators", what does it mean to you? peace? it is the foundation to Catalyst's implication that destroy doesn't work, that organics need more stern measures, that organic life must be altered on a biological level
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote] Vigilant111
If synthetics really wanted to wipe the organics out they would have done so already, and the Geth did wipe the the Quarians out, and it was not due to singularity
[/quote]
a. It's not about wanting to do anything.
b. Geth did not wipe the Quarians out.
c. No one has every argued that Synthetic led Genocide can only happen with a TS.
... A Square is a Rectangle, but a Rectangle isn't necessarily a Square... [/quote]
I am just telling you that technological singularity is not the cause for the destruction of organic life, so u relax with your synthesis, there are a million other reasons that will get you killed, but not necesarily singularity
What is c? then why did u choose synthesis? aren't you afraid to be wiped out by bad a** synthetics? who happened to be post-singularity
Look, I am only saying synthesis does not guarantee anything, and certainly not the eternal survival of organics, it is no better than destroy if not worse
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote] Vigilant111
How come you always assume singularity is a "good" thing for synthetics and such a "bad" thing for organics?
[/quote]
Where was such an assumption uttered or stated?
It really isn't about good or bad, only invariability.
[/quote]
Didn't you notice the quotation marks? this assumption is uttered when you say organics are gonna be wiped out due to singularity, isn't it bad, isn't that what the Catalyst is implying?
How could singularity be beneficial to synthetics, what does it actually do? to help solve problems faster? what problems?
All I am saying is EVERYTHING has pros and cons, singularity, if it happens, it cannot be all "good" or all "bad" for any party
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
Where is the link between destruction of organics and singularity, there is no direct causal relationship here
[/quote]
Sure, in ME we don't talk about that.
But I believe the OP stated, in the foreword, that he isn't discussing how well it was written, only the underlying possible causalities.
Given that, we are left with understanding the TS theory on our own. In which case there is plenty of linking between the TS and the destruction of organics. [/quote]
Yes, we all retire to that eventually, typical, hmm, PLENTY of linking, pick your favourite, and pick a couple that says singularity is also beneficial for organics, since u are guessing
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
Destroy has very little to do with singularity, BW could not possibly expect everyone of us to understand what technological singularity means, the issue of singularity was not referenced in game
[/quote]
Do you mean to say that because BW could not possible expect everyone of us to understand what TS means, then Destroy has very little to do with Singularity?
Because that's how you wrote it... More or less saying that Tomatos are Red because the Rain in Spain stays mainly in the Plain.
Especially given the fact that the OP has already stated that he draws from the leaked Script and his own extrapolations to reach some of his conclusions. Basically nullifying your "was not referenced in the game" statement - cause he already stated that himself. [/quote]
Leaked script? extrapulations? tell me exactly how credible are they to the story, how much do they worth???
So your view is that BW intended singularity is the pivotal issue in the game? cos if that is the case, no one in the right mind would choose destroy and the game would have shown u evidence of this inevitability all along
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
We are not here to combat synthetics, we are here to combat the reapers, and why do we HAVE to combat synthetics? Why can't we just make peace?
[/quote]
He explained countless times why we can't make peace. Or, rather, that we can make peace, but considering the nonzero probabilities of both War and Peace, it will not last. Just as it won't last between two Organic factions. War will always come. Question is, which side will win and what that win would entail to the losing side. [/quote]
You don't have to preach to me that peace can't last
Which side would win??? the worthy one obviously, I am assuming you are saying that post-singularity synthetics shall "win", cos they are so intelligent, that is subjective view, we all have our own strength and waeknesses, "know your enemy and know yourself"
I cannot help but feeling that you are just buying insurance against possible destruction of the organics by choosing synthesis
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
What the reapers preserved was TRACES of individuals, not actual lives, those are lab samples only, not alive
[/quote]
Again, just like with the first point (TS is a Myth) - it doesn't matter what your moral understanding of it is, we are talking about the causes, the "motives" of the Catalyst. What it believes are solutions.
Sure, I agree that morally those solutions are abhorrent. But they are still rooted in causality, in a reason. [/quote]
This point has nothing to do with morals, the reapers claim that they ascend lives, but they are really not, this is a technicality issue
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
(1) that is only the Catalyst's opinion, I cannot agree[/quote]
That's your prerogative.
But it's not a counterpoint to the Catalyst. [/quote]
Okay
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
The reapers are doing it wrong, the issue is that organics keep popping up, from what reapers' point view, the organics are pretty much screwed anyway, the reapers will suffer no loss if all organics are wiped out
[/quote]
No. All you know is that their reason for the Cycle is to keep the Organic chaos alive. Keep it cycling.
You, and all of us, still don't know the WHY do they care? That is never to[/quote]
??? I thought they are trying to stop chaos
Why do they care??? because they want to save u by killing u
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
1. The points u made are not evidence to support the Catalyst or reapers' actions, u r just repeating what the Catalyst says
[/quote]
...Seriously?
He's repeating the very reasons the Catalyst states. How is that not "evidence" of what the Catalyst actually wants?
Again, this isn't about morals.
JShepp answers a pseudo contradiction of using Synths to kill Orgs to prevent them from creating Synths that would whipe them all out by using that statement that clearly shows that the Reapers are NOT, in fact, fully Synths.
How is that not evidence to debunk the proposed counter argument?
Again, this isn't about morals. It's not about supporting or condoning actions. Only understanding the reason. [/quote]
How hard it is to understand the Catalyst's reason, it is not that complicated, u sound as if we never understand its reasoning, we understand perfectly, we understand that it kills to preserve, okay? but it needs to be stopped
Well, if what it says is not evidence, but only reasoning, then it is even harder to believe it
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
2. The Catalyst made no reference to peace, the future is only bleak in its opinion[/quote]
Again, TS and Leaked Script.... [/quote]
??? don't mean s**t to me, I could only take what the ending gave me
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
3. (a) correct, reapers have self-preserving interests, ( you are repeating previous points u made
[/quote]
(a) Incorrect - you can't know if those interest are self preserving (which they might very well be) or preserving only the Cycle. Cause, without the Reapers, again according to the Catalyst's reasoning, the TS will happen and no Organics will remain. So it can be either or both. [/quote]
But u just proved my point, they need to survive to continue to harvest, it doesn't matter what it is for
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
( So? It's a section he dedicated to answering point made (and repeated several times) in an attempt to debunk his theory. So what? [/quote]
Okay
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
5. Beliefs, views...one against a million, organic/organic conflicts are none of Catalyst's problem
[/quote]
Your point here? [/quote]
Catalyst has ONE opinion only, it cannot represent all other objective opinions
I think the Catalyst and the reapers should butt out from our problems
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
6. "Cannot comprehend" is just a fancy way of saying "I can't be bothered explaining"
[/quote]
How is that even a counter argument to the OP? It goes side by side with what he wrote. [/quote]
I was venting about bad writing, I apologize for that
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
7. Catalyst is NOT right, the things it said are contradictory
[/quote]
Again with the "I know you are" equivalent?
What was it that was contradictory? [/quote]
They say they are here to stop the chaos, but they themselves are part of the chaos
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
2. It doesn't matter what they view, what matters is how WE view, we are not harbingers, we are not obliged to look at their way of life, we have our own lives to worry about
[/quote]
Way to miss the whole point of the topic.
He stated, like a thousand times, that the topic is not about Moral judgement, only about understanding HOW they might think. For that we DO have to look at their way of viewing things.
To know thine enemy and all that.... [/quote]
Well, I am offering u different speculations about how the reapers might think, and it ain't pretty and innocent like you think
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
7. The worry is that organics disregard ethics when creating AIs
[/quote]
How so?
With all due respect to the Four Laws of Robotics...
Scratch that, even the development of the Zeroth Law is your first great leap towards a TS.
Daneel basically came itself to the conclusion that this law must exist and it superceeds the original Three Laws. It wasn't added there by a human, but Daneel itself reasoned it.
It's the law that drives Asimov's fictionverse to create the Foundation and Other Foundation - basically a control system, a subjugation system.
To take an extreme leap here, there might come another robot in the future of that universe who might decided that the best way to protect all of humanity is simply to put them all to sleep, preserve it cryogenically.
ALL OF THEM!
So... ethics or no ethics, there lots more at stake here than just that.
And, again, not a counter point to the OP. [/quote]
??? I was referring to the ethics revolving around creating AIs and use them as slaves, and the reason why AIs are created in the first place
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
12. There is no way out for u, is there? if u say they are synthetics, then some people would say that their death is justified as they are just a bunch of killing machines; on the other hand, if u argue they are organic, then they should understand organics' ideals, way of life and the concept of justice, and most importantly, to be able to deceive
[/quote]
Your point being? He acknoledges problematic writing... or loop holes. What's your point? [/quote]
We ALL acknowledge bad writing and who said the above is bad writing? you cannot just go to bad writting when you cannot make sense of something, that was just a simple rationale for people who think that reapers shouldn't be killed cos appearantly they are organic, it is just contradictions to what people think
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
13. may I ask what gives the Catalyst the right to "deem" certain civilisations as expendable? cos it got guns?
[/quote]
No, you may NOT ask that.
Why? Because, for the thousand and oneth time - it's not about Morals. [/quote]
Not about morals then I am not entitled to ask? or because u are afraid what that answer might be? There is no f**king way that the Catalyst knows nothing about morals, aren't they supposed to be intelligent? how can they be so successful in harvesting without knowing anything about the organic psyche??? It is of Catalyst's best interest to not touch the subject of morals
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
14. the 2 cycles we observed were a POPULATION, NOT a sample, and we didn't really see organic/synthetic conflicts as a problem until the Catalyst told us so, the Catalyst did its own experiments based on SIMULATIONS, we have experience of our own, these are two SEPARATE things
[/quote]
.....
No, those are samples. NOT population.
Population would be data concerning the whole of the Billion years and all Cycles therein. [/quote]
We can only take what we have got, the two cycles that we know of is sufficient enough to constiitute a population, albeit not a big, accurate one
That's not valid data that Catalyst had, only SIMULATIONS, estimations, it was assuming things, no observations were made, there are deviations that are not possible to observe cos the reapers killed the oragnics too early
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
The reapers "reproduce" to help harvesting, NOT to ascend
[/quote]
How does that make sense? [/quote]
Reproduce troops to harvest
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
34. organics were able to influence synthetics, reach a level of mutual understand, trust is developed
[/quote]
Again...
Sample - not population. In this case, the statistics is on decisions in infinite time.
We don't have the population data.
To put it simple, just cause we won a battle, doesn't mean we won the war.... [/quote]
Synthetics are created by organics are they not, why is so hard for both to reach understanding and trust???
Who is asking you to win the war against the synthetics??? I took destroy knowing the full risk that synthetics may wipe organics out, that things may turn out to be worse, but I do believe that the trend can be broken
__________________
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
Sorry, but I fail to see how you consider these poitns of yours as counter arguments to the OP.
[/quote]
Oh don't be sorry, neither do I, it was just a stupid title I used, cos I recognise it is all a bunch of speculations, including singularity, just debating the likelihood of things, not SOLID counter points
End note: I think u are being agnostic about the Catalyst , and it gets you nowhere, it is indecision
[quote] Vigilant111 wrote...
Technological singularity is a myth [/quote]
That's just a random assertion.
This statement is no better than saying "I know you are, but what am I?".
Why do you think a TS is a myth? Please, elaborate if you are going to use it as a counter point.
The above not withstanding, how is it even relevant to the issue?
JShepp presents base assumptions that drive the Catalyst's motives (to his understanding). He doesn't assert those assumptions are correct, false or even likely. He simply talks about the motivations, or, rather, causations.
If someone assumes there's a vengeful God, you can't just go "God's a myth" as a counter point to the need to pray. Because he assumes the existence in the base of all his actions.
You can use "God's a myth" to persuade him that he doesn't. But not to explain the reasoning itself away. [/quote]
Technological change does not accelarate forever, any technological advancement must be a response to change, it cannot just happen in random fashion, you do not self-modify for nothing, and the stimulus for change rests in interation with organics, and eventually the stimulus will die down as the purposes for change had been fulfilled
It is a myth because there is no evidence for it, there are always things that can be done to stop this so-called singularity
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote] Vigilant111...
Catalyst assumes war is the only possibility
[/quote]
No. It does not.
It assumes a TS. It doesn't talk about possibilities of war and peace, only the final, the end outcome of the Wager.
The TS theory, by it's nature, is a Prudential one. Thus giving rise to the Nonzero probabilities.
Given those nonzero probabilities and their utilities, the final Expectation - methematical calculation of the Expectation - results in something unfavorable for organic life. [/quote]
Yes, the Catalyst specifically said "the created will always rebel against their creators", what does it mean to you? peace? it is the foundation to Catalyst's implication that destroy doesn't work, that organics need more stern measures, that organic life must be altered on a biological level
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote] Vigilant111
If synthetics really wanted to wipe the organics out they would have done so already, and the Geth did wipe the the Quarians out, and it was not due to singularity
[/quote]
a. It's not about wanting to do anything.
b. Geth did not wipe the Quarians out.
c. No one has every argued that Synthetic led Genocide can only happen with a TS.
... A Square is a Rectangle, but a Rectangle isn't necessarily a Square... [/quote]
I am just telling you that technological singularity is not the cause for the destruction of organic life, so u relax with your synthesis, there are a million other reasons that will get you killed, but not necesarily singularity
What is c? then why did u choose synthesis? aren't you afraid to be wiped out by bad a** synthetics? who happened to be post-singularity
Look, I am only saying synthesis does not guarantee anything, and certainly not the eternal survival of organics, it is no better than destroy if not worse
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote] Vigilant111
How come you always assume singularity is a "good" thing for synthetics and such a "bad" thing for organics?
[/quote]
Where was such an assumption uttered or stated?
It really isn't about good or bad, only invariability.
[/quote]
Didn't you notice the quotation marks? this assumption is uttered when you say organics are gonna be wiped out due to singularity, isn't it bad, isn't that what the Catalyst is implying?
How could singularity be beneficial to synthetics, what does it actually do? to help solve problems faster? what problems?
All I am saying is EVERYTHING has pros and cons, singularity, if it happens, it cannot be all "good" or all "bad" for any party
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
Where is the link between destruction of organics and singularity, there is no direct causal relationship here
[/quote]
Sure, in ME we don't talk about that.
But I believe the OP stated, in the foreword, that he isn't discussing how well it was written, only the underlying possible causalities.
Given that, we are left with understanding the TS theory on our own. In which case there is plenty of linking between the TS and the destruction of organics. [/quote]
Yes, we all retire to that eventually, typical, hmm, PLENTY of linking, pick your favourite, and pick a couple that says singularity is also beneficial for organics, since u are guessing
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
Destroy has very little to do with singularity, BW could not possibly expect everyone of us to understand what technological singularity means, the issue of singularity was not referenced in game
[/quote]
Do you mean to say that because BW could not possible expect everyone of us to understand what TS means, then Destroy has very little to do with Singularity?
Because that's how you wrote it... More or less saying that Tomatos are Red because the Rain in Spain stays mainly in the Plain.
Especially given the fact that the OP has already stated that he draws from the leaked Script and his own extrapolations to reach some of his conclusions. Basically nullifying your "was not referenced in the game" statement - cause he already stated that himself. [/quote]
Leaked script? extrapulations? tell me exactly how credible are they to the story, how much do they worth???
So your view is that BW intended singularity is the pivotal issue in the game? cos if that is the case, no one in the right mind would choose destroy and the game would have shown u evidence of this inevitability all along
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
We are not here to combat synthetics, we are here to combat the reapers, and why do we HAVE to combat synthetics? Why can't we just make peace?
[/quote]
He explained countless times why we can't make peace. Or, rather, that we can make peace, but considering the nonzero probabilities of both War and Peace, it will not last. Just as it won't last between two Organic factions. War will always come. Question is, which side will win and what that win would entail to the losing side. [/quote]
You don't have to preach to me that peace can't last
Which side would win??? the worthy one obviously, I am assuming you are saying that post-singularity synthetics shall "win", cos they are so intelligent, that is subjective view, we all have our own strength and waeknesses, "know your enemy and know yourself"
I cannot help but feeling that you are just buying insurance against possible destruction of the organics by choosing synthesis
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
What the reapers preserved was TRACES of individuals, not actual lives, those are lab samples only, not alive
[/quote]
Again, just like with the first point (TS is a Myth) - it doesn't matter what your moral understanding of it is, we are talking about the causes, the "motives" of the Catalyst. What it believes are solutions.
Sure, I agree that morally those solutions are abhorrent. But they are still rooted in causality, in a reason. [/quote]
This point has nothing to do with morals, the reapers claim that they ascend lives, but they are really not, this is a technicality issue
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
(1) that is only the Catalyst's opinion, I cannot agree[/quote]
That's your prerogative.
But it's not a counterpoint to the Catalyst. [/quote]
Okay
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
The reapers are doing it wrong, the issue is that organics keep popping up, from what reapers' point view, the organics are pretty much screwed anyway, the reapers will suffer no loss if all organics are wiped out
[/quote]
No. All you know is that their reason for the Cycle is to keep the Organic chaos alive. Keep it cycling.
You, and all of us, still don't know the WHY do they care? That is never to[/quote]
??? I thought they are trying to stop chaos
Why do they care??? because they want to save u by killing u
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
1. The points u made are not evidence to support the Catalyst or reapers' actions, u r just repeating what the Catalyst says
[/quote]
...Seriously?
He's repeating the very reasons the Catalyst states. How is that not "evidence" of what the Catalyst actually wants?
Again, this isn't about morals.
JShepp answers a pseudo contradiction of using Synths to kill Orgs to prevent them from creating Synths that would whipe them all out by using that statement that clearly shows that the Reapers are NOT, in fact, fully Synths.
How is that not evidence to debunk the proposed counter argument?
Again, this isn't about morals. It's not about supporting or condoning actions. Only understanding the reason. [/quote]
How hard it is to understand the Catalyst's reason, it is not that complicated, u sound as if we never understand its reasoning, we understand perfectly, we understand that it kills to preserve, okay? but it needs to be stopped
Well, if what it says is not evidence, but only reasoning, then it is even harder to believe it
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
2. The Catalyst made no reference to peace, the future is only bleak in its opinion[/quote]
Again, TS and Leaked Script.... [/quote]
??? don't mean s**t to me, I could only take what the ending gave me
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
3. (a) correct, reapers have self-preserving interests, (
you are repeating previous points u made[/quote]
(a) Incorrect - you can't know if those interest are self preserving (which they might very well be) or preserving only the Cycle. Cause, without the Reapers, again according to the Catalyst's reasoning, the TS will happen and no Organics will remain. So it can be either or both. [/quote]
But u just proved my point, they need to survive to continue to harvest, it doesn't matter what it is for
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
(
So? It's a section he dedicated to answering point made (and repeated several times) in an attempt to debunk his theory. So what? [/quote]Okay
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
5. Beliefs, views...one against a million, organic/organic conflicts are none of Catalyst's problem
[/quote]
Your point here? [/quote]
Catalyst has ONE opinion only, it cannot represent all other objective opinions
I think the Catalyst and the reapers should butt out from our problems
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
6. "Cannot comprehend" is just a fancy way of saying "I can't be bothered explaining"
[/quote]
How is that even a counter argument to the OP? It goes side by side with what he wrote. [/quote]
I was venting about bad writing, I apologize for that
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
7. Catalyst is NOT right, the things it said are contradictory
[/quote]
Again with the "I know you are" equivalent?
What was it that was contradictory? [/quote]
They say they are here to stop the chaos, but they themselves are part of the chaos
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
2. It doesn't matter what they view, what matters is how WE view, we are not harbingers, we are not obliged to look at their way of life, we have our own lives to worry about
[/quote]
Way to miss the whole point of the topic.
He stated, like a thousand times, that the topic is not about Moral judgement, only about understanding HOW they might think. For that we DO have to look at their way of viewing things.
To know thine enemy and all that.... [/quote]
Well, I am offering u different speculations about how the reapers might think, and it ain't pretty and innocent like you think
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
7. The worry is that organics disregard ethics when creating AIs
[/quote]
How so?
With all due respect to the Four Laws of Robotics...
Scratch that, even the development of the Zeroth Law is your first great leap towards a TS.
Daneel basically came itself to the conclusion that this law must exist and it superceeds the original Three Laws. It wasn't added there by a human, but Daneel itself reasoned it.
It's the law that drives Asimov's fictionverse to create the Foundation and Other Foundation - basically a control system, a subjugation system.
To take an extreme leap here, there might come another robot in the future of that universe who might decided that the best way to protect all of humanity is simply to put them all to sleep, preserve it cryogenically.
ALL OF THEM!
So... ethics or no ethics, there lots more at stake here than just that.
And, again, not a counter point to the OP. [/quote]
??? I was referring to the ethics revolving around creating AIs and use them as slaves, and the reason why AIs are created in the first place
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
12. There is no way out for u, is there? if u say they are synthetics, then some people would say that their death is justified as they are just a bunch of killing machines; on the other hand, if u argue they are organic, then they should understand organics' ideals, way of life and the concept of justice, and most importantly, to be able to deceive
[/quote]
Your point being? He acknoledges problematic writing... or loop holes. What's your point? [/quote]
We ALL acknowledge bad writing and who said the above is bad writing? you cannot just go to bad writting when you cannot make sense of something, that was just a simple rationale for people who think that reapers shouldn't be killed cos appearantly they are organic, it is just contradictions to what people think
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
13. may I ask what gives the Catalyst the right to "deem" certain civilisations as expendable? cos it got guns?
[/quote]
No, you may NOT ask that.
Why? Because, for the thousand and oneth time - it's not about Morals. [/quote]
Not about morals then I am not entitled to ask? or because u are afraid what that answer might be? There is no f**king way that the Catalyst knows nothing about morals, aren't they supposed to be intelligent? how can they be so successful in harvesting without knowing anything about the organic psyche??? It is of Catalyst's best interest to not touch the subject of morals
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
14. the 2 cycles we observed were a POPULATION, NOT a sample, and we didn't really see organic/synthetic conflicts as a problem until the Catalyst told us so, the Catalyst did its own experiments based on SIMULATIONS, we have experience of our own, these are two SEPARATE things
[/quote]
.....
No, those are samples. NOT population.
Population would be data concerning the whole of the Billion years and all Cycles therein. [/quote]
We can only take what we have got, the two cycles that we know of is sufficient enough to constiitute a population, albeit not a big, accurate one
That's not valid data that Catalyst had, only SIMULATIONS, estimations, it was assuming things, no observations were made, there are deviations that are not possible to observe cos the reapers killed the oragnics too early
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
The reapers "reproduce" to help harvesting, NOT to ascend
[/quote]
How does that make sense? [/quote]
Reproduce troops to harvest
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
[quote]Vigilant111
34. organics were able to influence synthetics, reach a level of mutual understand, trust is developed
[/quote]
Again...
Sample - not population. In this case, the statistics is on decisions in infinite time.
We don't have the population data.
To put it simple, just cause we won a battle, doesn't mean we won the war.... [/quote]
Synthetics are created by organics are they not, why is so hard for both to reach understanding and trust???
Who is asking you to win the war against the synthetics??? I took destroy knowing the full risk that synthetics may wipe organics out, that things may turn out to be worse, but I do believe that the trend can be broken
__________________
[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...
Sorry, but I fail to see how you consider these poitns of yours as counter arguments to the OP.
[/quote]
Oh don't be sorry, neither do I, it was just a stupid title I used, cos I recognise it is all a bunch of speculations, including singularity, just debating the likelihood of things, not SOLID counter points
End note: I think u are being agnostic about the Catalyst , and it gets you nowhere, it is indecision
Modifié par Vigilant111, 22 juin 2012 - 04:53 .
#1045
Posté 22 juin 2012 - 04:57
The Night Mammoth
-
- Members
- 7 476 messages
Shaigunjoe wrote...
First you need to explain how my definition of singularity is a leap of logic, you can start by explaining who defined what a singularity is in the first place.
It has no 'dictionay' definition, it needs context to apply.
In context, it's a single point we converge to that cannot be predicted past, that is likely a point of no return - when AI's reach a level of 'superintelligence'.
Anything after that is speculation, unproven. It cannot be predicted past. Saying the Catalyst has the means is simple speculation. Believing it is in a state of 'superintelligence' is also speculation, and would put more holes in the supporting argument.
If you are unsure, the two points you spell out at the end of your post are leaps of logic as far as supporting your point is concerned.
Which point? The point about the singularity definition? Those aren't supporting arguments.
About me dismissing what it says? Nope.
It doesn't make sense, it commits at least two mistakes in its reasoning by telling us organic extinction is inevitible.
It also fails to give any evidence.
In fact, then it would point to the opposite. I would imagine that if you were presented with a result of a singularity it would 'make no sense' to you.
Why? Nothing about the results would be difficult to understand.
Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 22 juin 2012 - 04:58 .
#1046
Posté 22 juin 2012 - 05:19
Shaigunjoe
-
- Members
- 925 messages
The Night Mammoth wrote...
Shaigunjoe wrote...
First you need to explain how my definition of singularity is a leap of logic, you can start by explaining who defined what a singularity is in the first place.
It has no 'dictionay' definition, it needs context to apply.
In context, it's a single point we converge to that cannot be predicted past, that is likely a point of no return - when AI's reach a level of 'superintelligence'.
Anything after that is speculation, unproven. It cannot be predicted past. Saying the Catalyst has the means is simple speculation. Believing it is in a state of 'superintelligence' is also speculation, and would put more holes in the supporting argument.If you are unsure, the two points you spell out at the end of your post are leaps of logic as far as supporting your point is concerned.
Which point? The point about the singularity definition? Those aren't supporting arguments.
About me dismissing what it says? Nope.
It doesn't make sense, it commits at least two mistakes in its reasoning by telling us organic extinction is inevitible.
It also fails to give any evidence.
In fact, then it would point to the opposite. I would imagine that if you were presented with a result of a singularity it would 'make no sense' to you.
Why? Nothing about the results would be difficult to understand.
Exactly! As you said, 'we'.
The whole singularity concept is something that we are dealing with outside of the game, I don't think the catalyst ever explicitly said anything about a singularity. It is speculation, it is speculation to say that the catalyst knows inside of whatever tolerence he defines acceptable that organics will eventually be wiped out by synthetics. It is also speculation to say the opposite.
#1047
Posté 22 juin 2012 - 05:23
memorysquid
-
- Members
- 681 messages
Vigilant111 wrote...
Technological change does not accelarate forever, any technological advancement must be a response to change, it cannot just happen in random fashion, you do not self-modify for nothing, and the stimulus for change rests in interation with organics, and eventually the stimulus will die down as the purposes for change had been fulfilled
It is a myth because there is no evidence for it, there are always things that can be done to stop this so-called singularity
Or then again maybe there can't. This is a fictional universe. Nothing says that the authors weren't being perfectly open in what they had the catalyst claim. In fact, the evidence in the game is that AIs do tend to come into violent conflict with their creators for whatever reason - in fact, I cannot think of a single AI in the game that doesn't fit that model. Geth, EDI both as lunar VI and now as self-willed AI, Metacons, Citadel finance AI, etc., every single instance of AI and several of VI feature rebellion against creator for some reason. With the exception of whatever the Catalyst is supposed to be, all in game evidence points to the Catalyst's conclusion being a rational, empirical observation.
#1048
Posté 22 juin 2012 - 05:24
The Night Mammoth
-
- Members
- 7 476 messages
Shaigunjoe wrote...
Exactly! As you said, 'we'.
The whole singularity concept is something that we are dealing with outside of the game, I don't think the catalyst ever explicitly said anything about a singularity. It is speculation, it is speculation to say that the catalyst knows inside of whatever tolerence he defines acceptable that organics will eventually be wiped out by synthetics. It is also speculation to say the opposite.
I see what you mean now.
Where I'm coming from is that the 'technological singularity' is the basis for all of this explanation, as in, there's a defined real world theory we can all look at and deduce from, a common point.
From my understanding, it has an obvious defintion in this context, so I thought it would apply here as well, but I'm possibly wrong. I haven't read the OP in a while, it's quote time consuming.
Anyway, yeah, speculation from both sides, admittedly.
Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 22 juin 2012 - 05:26 .
#1049
Posté 22 juin 2012 - 05:27
The Night Mammoth
-
- Members
- 7 476 messages
memorysquid wrote...
Vigilant111 wrote...
Technological change does not accelarate forever, any technological advancement must be a response to change, it cannot just happen in random fashion, you do not self-modify for nothing, and the stimulus for change rests in interation with organics, and eventually the stimulus will die down as the purposes for change had been fulfilled
It is a myth because there is no evidence for it, there are always things that can be done to stop this so-called singularity
Or then again maybe there can't. This is a fictional universe. Nothing says that the authors weren't being perfectly open in what they had the catalyst claim. In fact, the evidence in the game is that AIs do tend to come into violent conflict with their creators for whatever reason - in fact, I cannot think of a single AI in the game that doesn't fit that model. Geth, EDI both as lunar VI and now as self-willed AI, Metacons, Citadel finance AI, etc., every single instance of AI and several of VI feature rebellion against creator for some reason. With the exception of whatever the Catalyst is supposed to be, all in game evidence points to the Catalyst's conclusion being a rational, empirical observation.
Basically irrelevant, unless they attempt to eradicate all organic life. The created can rebel all the want, and are often right to do so, but they don't support what the Catalyst says.
#1050
Posté 22 juin 2012 - 08:58
JShepppp
-
- Members
- 1 607 messages
Wow EC will be out in like 3 days O_o
I hope they include the singularity.
But either way I'm excited to see where they'll go.
I hope they include the singularity.
But either way I'm excited to see where they'll go.
