350 réponses à ce sujet

[DanteImprimis]

I like the level of discussion going on here -- definitely a testament to the thought BioWare put into the whole quarian-geth conflict, and the issues of transhumanism and AI -- but there have been a couple of ideas put forward that I wanted to briefly address. I was surprised they were countered earlier, but I assume that's owing to the speed of the discussion here.

sirisaacx wrote...

LystAP wrote...

sirisaacx wrote...

I think the geth are utterly terrifying and I would kill them all in a heartbeat if I had the chance. Not that I don't think they're sympathetic, but any race capable of IMPROVING their own intelligence would eventually become so advanced that our intellect would be like that of an ant to them. So far below us we don't even consider the emotional response they'd have when we destroy their entire colonies with poison, just because them living is inconvenient to us.

Nice argument for human extinction. Your forgetting that we humans are also constantly improving our intelligence, a human today has significantly greater potential than those that have come before. In addition, how many of us humans consider the feelings of a gopher colony before we gas the tunnels. 

Incorrect. Our IQ's today are all but unchanged from those 4000 years ago. The only difference is we now have previous information to base new discoveries on. So our KNOWLEDGE is improving, but our IQ's are staying fairly level. The Geth, however, can not only improve their IQ, but do it much faster than even the most rapid methods of evolution.

Not sure where you're getting this information from, sirisaac, but the Flynn effect suggests otherwise for the past century at the very least. Not only does it seem intuitively wrong to suggest that human intelligence has not advanced meaningfully over the past four thousand years, but if any of the proposed explanations for the Flynn effect are correct, then it would be empirically wrong to suggest this.

Second, to the numerous individuals who have asserted that dogs are self-aware, the current scientific evidence disagrees. The basic test used to determine self-awareness in animals, the mirror test, is one that dogs consistently fail. Even tests that purport to better measure a dog's self-awareness through their sense of smell (since dogs aren't primarily visual creatures) are inconclusive at best.

Please note that I'm not trying to attack anyone -- I simply feel that we should be willing to rigorously examine any and all assertions made in the course of this discussion (mine included, of course!), in order to preserve its high caliber. Carry on, all, carry on! 

Modifié par DanteImprimis, 02 avril 2012 - 08:31 .

[FirstCitizen800]

sirisaacx wrote...

I'm not sure that holds water. I think that there are possible two
"types" of life, if you can categorize something that broad with
something so arbitrary. Those driven by logic, and those driven by
emotion and logic. Both are equally valid, and we as humans are the
latter, so we tend to appreciate the latter more. However, from an
objective standpoint, emotion is just a distraction. It's completely
superfluous and "perfect' life would not have it.

The concept of "perfect" life is a value judgement, made meaningless since it doesn't include the "for what" which is required for a proper evaluation. There is no such thing as perfection in a vaccum.

Modifié par FirstCitizen800, 02 avril 2012 - 08:30 .

[xxLDZxx]

I am KROGAN wrote...

I sided with the Geth out of pure hate and rage over the stupid Quarian admiral who wouldn't F**KING LISTEN TO ME AND BACK THE F**K OFF.

Long story short, I punched him in the stomach and kicked him off my ship. Later I realized I couldn't broker peace between the 2 because that admiral is a ******.

Let Legion upload the code, Tali suicides

I raged for like 15 minutes after she killed herself. It's all that stupid admirals fault.

Edit: spelling

Mhh strange I puncht admiral too did legion uploud and saved all.

[pomrink]

[quote]FirstCitizen800 wrote...

[quote]pomrink wrote...
[/quote]

Well sir, that definition of what you consider a mind to be actually rules out a large amount of the human population. Also, to clear things up, I despise that member of my family, so don't hold back in your arguments.

[/quote]

Related to this topic, when we imprison a person for life or execute them we don't declare them 'unalive'. But when it is done for cause, often it is justified by saying they've forefited their right to society. Not all sociopaths are criminal, but I think we even recognize among ourselves that some members of the species...by my definition at least...are more 'alive' than others.

[/quote]

I'm about to go to sleep, but I'll reply to this before I go.

I disagree with you on all points on what you define a mind as. I don't think empathy is needed to consider one as having consciousness, I base it more on self awareness and intelligence. Do people consider you sentient if you lack self awareness? No, they consider you a vegetable. Do people consider you sentient if you lack intelligence? No, they consider you (and I'm loathe to use the word this way) an animal. Now, do people consider you sentient if you lack the ability to make moral decisions? Yes, but they view you as sick, or evil, but still sentient. That's where I think your points are(for the lack of a better word, sorry for how harsh it is) bollocks. Morality has nothing to do with sentience, or having a mind.

[sirisaacx]

DanteImprimis wrote...

Not sure where you're getting this information from, sirisaac, but the Flynn effect suggests otherwise for the past century at the very least. Not only does it seem intuitively wrong to suggest that human intelligence has not advanced meaningfully over the past four thousand years, but if any of the proposed explanations for the Flynn effect are correct, then it would be empirically wrong to suggest this.

Second, to the numerous individuals who have asserted that dogs are self-aware, the current scientific evidence disagrees. The basic test used to determine self-awareness in animals, the mirror test, is one that dogs consistently fail. Even tests that purport to better measure a dog's self-awareness through their sense of smell (since dogs aren't primarily visual creatures) are inconclusive at best.

Please note that I'm not trying to attack anyone in particular -- I simply feel that we should be willing to rigorously examine any and all assertions made in the course of this discussion (mine included, of course!), in order to preserve its high caliber. Carry on, all, carry on! 

Thanks for the correction. You're right, I didn't fact check. I was operating off of information from an old professor that apparently was not entirely correct and I should have fact checked. I still maintain that the Flynn Effect could not hold a candle to the increase in synthetic IQ after a technological singularity, however.

[IntrepidDeath]

sirisaacx wrote...

I'm not sure that holds water. I think that there are possible two "types" of life, if you can categorize something that broad with something so arbitrary. Those driven by logic, and those driven by emotion and logic. Both are equally valid, and we as humans are the latter, so we tend to appreciate the latter more. However, from an objective standpoint, emotion is just a distraction. It's completely superfluous and "perfect' life would not have it.

I'm going to have to disagree with that, because defining "perfect" life is a ridiculous prospect. Why should emotions or illogical behavior be considered less "perfect"? The idea of one thing being more "perfect" implies that there is some goal for this "perfect" life. "Better" is a meaningless concept if it isn't applied in the manner of "better at doing something", and "perfect" is similar in that regard.

[sirisaacx]

IntrepidDeath wrote...

sirisaacx wrote...

I'm not sure that holds water. I think that there are possible two "types" of life, if you can categorize something that broad with something so arbitrary. Those driven by logic, and those driven by emotion and logic. Both are equally valid, and we as humans are the latter, so we tend to appreciate the latter more. However, from an objective standpoint, emotion is just a distraction. It's completely superfluous and "perfect' life would not have it.

I'm going to have to disagree with that, because defining "perfect" life is a ridiculous prospect. Why should emotions or illogical behavior be considered less "perfect"? The idea of one thing being more "perfect" implies that there is some goal for this "perfect" life. "Better" is a meaningless concept if it isn't applied in the manner of "better at doing something", and "perfect" is similar in that regard.

True. In my case, I was talking about the closest thing to meaning life gets, which is self preservation. And I believe that a purely logical creature would be better at self preservation than one riddled with emotions. However, this is not necessarily the purpose of life and in other cases you are certainly right. 

[FirstCitizen800]

pomrink wrote...

I'm about to go to sleep, but I'll reply to this before I go.

I
disagree with you on all points on what you define a mind as. I don't
think empathy is needed to consider one as having consciousness, I base
it more on self awareness and intelligence. Do people consider you
sentient if you lack self awareness? No, they consider you a vegetable.
Do people consider you sentient if you lack intelligence? No, they
consider you (and I'm loathe to use the word this way) an animal. Now,
do people consider you sentient if you lack the ability to make moral
decisions? Yes, but they view you as sick, or evil, but still sentient.
That's where I think your points are(for the lack of a better word,
sorry for how harsh it is) bollocks. Morality has nothing to do with
sentience, or having a mind.

Well, I think the confusion comes from the terms. We have been discussing whether or not the Geth are 'alive', not really whether or not they are sentience. I'll admit, for the majority of these arguments, I've taken that to mean 'Are the Geth a form of existence worthy of rights and respect'. After all, we have plenty forms of life that aren't respected on Earth, including sentient life. Some of that is simple prejudice, and some of that boils down to deciding that certain individuals possessing sentience are neverless not forms of life deserving respect (at least not insofar as freedom and sometimes continue life is a marker of respect.)

So yes, I can imagine the Geth as sentient, and for the sake of argument conceeded it. That doesn't necessarily make them worthy of respect and rights akin to a normal human.

[sirisaacx]

FirstCitizen800 wrote...

pomrink wrote...

I'm about to go to sleep, but I'll reply to this before I go.

I
disagree with you on all points on what you define a mind as. I don't
think empathy is needed to consider one as having consciousness, I base
it more on self awareness and intelligence. Do people consider you
sentient if you lack self awareness? No, they consider you a vegetable.
Do people consider you sentient if you lack intelligence? No, they
consider you (and I'm loathe to use the word this way) an animal. Now,
do people consider you sentient if you lack the ability to make moral
decisions? Yes, but they view you as sick, or evil, but still sentient.
That's where I think your points are(for the lack of a better word,
sorry for how harsh it is) bollocks. Morality has nothing to do with
sentience, or having a mind.

Well, I think the confusion comes from the terms. We have been discussing whether or not the Geth are 'alive', not really whether or not they are sentience. I'll admit, for the majority of these arguments, I've taken that to mean 'Are the Geth a form of existence worthy of rights and respect'. After all, we have plenty forms of life that aren't respected on Earth, including sentient life. Some of that is simple prejudice, and some of that boils down to deciding that certain individuals possessing sentience are neverless not forms of life deserving respect (at least not insofar as freedom and sometimes continue life is a marker of respect.)

So yes, I can imagine the Geth as sentient, and for the sake of argument conceeded it. That doesn't necessarily make them worthy of respect and rights akin to a normal human.

But who are any of us to make a qualitative statement deciding that some traits are more worthy of respect than others? I guarantee your respected traits and my own will differ at least slightly. What is "good" and "bad" for us is not necessarily the same for another form of life. Look up "orange and blue morality".

[FirstCitizen800]

sirisaacx wrote...

True. In my case, I was talking about the closest thing to meaning life gets, which is self preservation. And I believe that a purely logical creature would be better at self preservation than one riddled with emotions. However, this is not necessarily the purpose of life and in other cases you are certainly right. 

I have my doubts, but I don't see how we could test the concept. A perfectly illogical being would be very poor at self-preservation to be sure. A perfectly logical being might be better, but there could be unforseen difficulties as well. For instance, even if one assumes the Geth are perfectly logical, it obviously takes them time to reach consensus, and engine of their logical is not perfect, otherwise there couldn't have been the heretics. (How did a perfectly logical species come to two different conclusions as to the proper course of action?) I also highly suspect that while AI might be more logical than their creators, inevitably traces of their creators biological idiosycrancies will make it into their program.

Modifié par FirstCitizen800, 02 avril 2012 - 08:41 .

[IntrepidDeath]

sirisaacx wrote...

IntrepidDeath wrote...

sirisaacx wrote...

I'm not sure that holds water. I think that there are possible two "types" of life, if you can categorize something that broad with something so arbitrary. Those driven by logic, and those driven by emotion and logic. Both are equally valid, and we as humans are the latter, so we tend to appreciate the latter more. However, from an objective standpoint, emotion is just a distraction. It's completely superfluous and "perfect' life would not have it.

I'm going to have to disagree with that, because defining "perfect" life is a ridiculous prospect. Why should emotions or illogical behavior be considered less "perfect"? The idea of one thing being more "perfect" implies that there is some goal for this "perfect" life. "Better" is a meaningless concept if it isn't applied in the manner of "better at doing something", and "perfect" is similar in that regard.

True. In my case, I was talking about the closest thing to meaning life gets, which is self preservation. And I believe that a purely logical creature would be better at self preservation than one riddled with emotions. However, this is not necessarily the purpose of life and in other cases you are certainly right. 

Ah, but I agree with what my Paragon Shepard tells EDI: that there is more to life than self preservation. Essentially, that the ideals and emotions of a person are the exact things that define that person's meaning in life. That's the only meaningful metric I can come up with.

Also, I don't think that the geth are solely logical by nature. (I don't actually know if anyone said that they were, because once again, I'm tired and this thread moves quickly, but I'll say this regardless) Legion exhibits admiration and shame, neither of which one would ascribe to something that is purely logical.

[sirisaacx]

FirstCitizen800 wrote...

sirisaacx wrote...

True. In my case, I was talking about the closest thing to meaning life gets, which is self preservation. And I believe that a purely logical creature would be better at self preservation than one riddled with emotions. However, this is not necessarily the purpose of life and in other cases you are certainly right. 

I have my doubts, but I don't see how we could test the concept. A perfectly illogical being would be very poor at self-preservation to be sure. A perfectly logical being might be better, but there could be unforseen difficulties as well. For instance, even if one assumes the Geth are perfectly logical, it obviously takes them time to reach consensus, and engine of their logical is not perfect, otherwise there couldn't have been the heretics. (How did a perfectly logical species come to two different conclusions as to the proper course of action?) I also highly suspect that while AI might be more logical than their creators, inevitably traces of their creators biological idiosycrancies will make it into their program.

Well what Bioware has written might not be what would actually occur in reality, because a perfectly logical species could NOT come to two conclusions unless each had a 50 percent probability of success. One can only assume the geth are not purely logical. I find it hard to surmise any advantages emotion might have in self preservation over a 100 percent logical machine.

[Troffeltjie]

Luckily I could save both. Can only imagine what a gripe it would have been to choose between Legion and Tali. ...but yea, in the end it didn't even matter, if you know what I'm getting at. ;_;

[Gruzmog]

sirisaacx wrote...

FirstCitizen800 wrote...

sirisaacx wrote...

True. In my case, I was talking about the closest thing to meaning life gets, which is self preservation. And I believe that a purely logical creature would be better at self preservation than one riddled with emotions. However, this is not necessarily the purpose of life and in other cases you are certainly right. 

I have my doubts, but I don't see how we could test the concept. A perfectly illogical being would be very poor at self-preservation to be sure. A perfectly logical being might be better, but there could be unforseen difficulties as well. For instance, even if one assumes the Geth are perfectly logical, it obviously takes them time to reach consensus, and engine of their logical is not perfect, otherwise there couldn't have been the heretics. (How did a perfectly logical species come to two different conclusions as to the proper course of action?) I also highly suspect that while AI might be more logical than their creators, inevitably traces of their creators biological idiosycrancies will make it into their program.

Well what Bioware has written might not be what would actually occur in reality, because a perfectly logical species could NOT come to two conclusions unless each had a 50 percent probability of success. One can only assume the geth are not purely logical. I find it hard to surmise any advantages emotion might have in self preservation over a 100 percent logical machine.

I think the most likely problem that there are just too many variables to reach a definite logical answer. It's too much assumption based of what others will do to get anywere with 100% logic.

[sirisaacx]

IntrepidDeath wrote...

sirisaacx wrote...

IntrepidDeath wrote...

sirisaacx wrote...

I'm not sure that holds water. I think that there are possible two "types" of life, if you can categorize something that broad with something so arbitrary. Those driven by logic, and those driven by emotion and logic. Both are equally valid, and we as humans are the latter, so we tend to appreciate the latter more. However, from an objective standpoint, emotion is just a distraction. It's completely superfluous and "perfect' life would not have it.

I'm going to have to disagree with that, because defining "perfect" life is a ridiculous prospect. Why should emotions or illogical behavior be considered less "perfect"? The idea of one thing being more "perfect" implies that there is some goal for this "perfect" life. "Better" is a meaningless concept if it isn't applied in the manner of "better at doing something", and "perfect" is similar in that regard.

True. In my case, I was talking about the closest thing to meaning life gets, which is self preservation. And I believe that a purely logical creature would be better at self preservation than one riddled with emotions. However, this is not necessarily the purpose of life and in other cases you are certainly right. 

Ah, but I agree with what my Paragon Shepard tells EDI: that there is more to life than self preservation. Essentially, that the ideals and emotions of a person are the exact things that define that person's meaning in life. That's the only meaningful metric I can come up with.

Also, I don't think that the geth are solely logical by nature. (I don't actually know if anyone said that they were, because once again, I'm tired and this thread moves quickly, but I'll say this regardless) Legion exhibits admiration and shame, neither of which one would ascribe to something that is purely logical.

Yeah, like I said in my last post, the heretic and geth split would not have happened under a purely logical race. They would have all reached one conclusion.

And that's an interesting point. Is there more to life than self preservation? I'm tempted to say no, that there doesn't have to be, but it is food for thought nonetheless. Life would certainly be a lot less.... Lifelike... If not for the emotions we posess.

[BurningArmor]

It was a pleasure gut punching Han Garrol and giving him the boot from Normandy for his attack on the Geth Dreadnaught while Shepard and Tali Zora were still aboard. Further more, I laughed real hard at Admiral Xen's failed attempts to find out more about Geth Servers and how Shepard had gotten the Geth to work for him. Other than that, Shepard was trying to protect both fleets.

[sirisaacx]

Gruzmog wrote...

sirisaacx wrote...

FirstCitizen800 wrote...

sirisaacx wrote...

True. In my case, I was talking about the closest thing to meaning life gets, which is self preservation. And I believe that a purely logical creature would be better at self preservation than one riddled with emotions. However, this is not necessarily the purpose of life and in other cases you are certainly right. 

I have my doubts, but I don't see how we could test the concept. A perfectly illogical being would be very poor at self-preservation to be sure. A perfectly logical being might be better, but there could be unforseen difficulties as well. For instance, even if one assumes the Geth are perfectly logical, it obviously takes them time to reach consensus, and engine of their logical is not perfect, otherwise there couldn't have been the heretics. (How did a perfectly logical species come to two different conclusions as to the proper course of action?) I also highly suspect that while AI might be more logical than their creators, inevitably traces of their creators biological idiosycrancies will make it into their program.

Well what Bioware has written might not be what would actually occur in reality, because a perfectly logical species could NOT come to two conclusions unless each had a 50 percent probability of success. One can only assume the geth are not purely logical. I find it hard to surmise any advantages emotion might have in self preservation over a 100 percent logical machine.

I think the most likely problem that there are just too many variables to reach a definite logical answer. It's too much assumption based of what others will do to get anywere with 100% logic.

True, but a sufficiently powerful machine race could calculate all of the variables and output a probability as to which course of action was deemed the most in line with self preservation parameters. 

[FirstCitizen800]

sirisaacx wrote...

But who are any of us to make a qualitative statement deciding that some traits are more worthy of respect than others? I guarantee your respected traits and my own will differ at least slightly. What is "good" and "bad" for us is not necessarily the same for another form of life. Look up "orange and blue morality".

True, but to a certain extent the will to live is the will to power. Everyone has a certain set of beliefs, and they are not necessarily stagnate, otherwise human culture would not evolve. (Or its alien counterparts) These beliefs are shaped by negotiation and experience, and host of relatively benign non-violent means. Nevertheless, at a certain point, when moralities become so incompatible as to preclude further negotiation, inevitably some form of violence settles the issue. Just by tolerating certain things, and not tolerating others, everyone makes qualitative statements on what traits are more worthy of respect than others. The Geth, for instance, tolerated exiled Qurians existing but none on the homeworld.

Modifié par FirstCitizen800, 02 avril 2012 - 08:52 .

[IntrepidDeath]

sirisaacx wrote...

Well what Bioware has written might not be what would actually occur in reality, because a perfectly logical species could NOT come to two conclusions unless each had a 50 percent probability of success. One can only assume the geth are not purely logical. I find it hard to surmise any advantages emotion might have in self preservation over a 100 percent logical machine.

See, the thing about logic is that you always have to start with assumptions. If these assumptions differ for two people, the logical conclusions that arise from these assumptions can also differ. The heretics had code that caused, essentially, their assumptions to be different from normal geth in a way that caused them to behave in a rather unpleasant manner. Edit: They are still capable of being perfectly logical and disagreeing. I don't happen to think that they're perfectly logical, but that's beside my point.

Also, I can see an easy situation when an illogical species could triumph over a logical one. In the prisoner's dilemma, the logical choice for everyone involved is to betray the others, but if they were illogical, and none of them betrayed the others, then everyone benefits. That is, of course, assuming that the primary motivation for all involved in the prisoner's dilemma is personal benefit.

Modifié par IntrepidDeath, 02 avril 2012 - 08:55 .

[sirisaacx]

IntrepidDeath wrote...

sirisaacx wrote...

Well what Bioware has written might not be what would actually occur in reality, because a perfectly logical species could NOT come to two conclusions unless each had a 50 percent probability of success. One can only assume the geth are not purely logical. I find it hard to surmise any advantages emotion might have in self preservation over a 100 percent logical machine.

See, the thing about logic is that you always have to start with assumptions. If these assumptions differ for two people, the logical conclusions that arise from these assumptions can also differ. The heretics had code that caused, essentially, their assumptions to be different from normal geth in a way that caused them to behave in a rather unpleasant manner.

Also, I can see an easy situation when an illogical species could triumph over a logical one. In the prisoner's dilemma, the logical choice for everyone involved is to betray the others, but if they were illogical, and none of them betrayed the others, then everyone benefits. That is, of course, assuming that the primary motivation for all involved in the prisoner's dilemma is personal benefit.

Ah the prisoner's dilemma. I love that one, and it's a fantastic counterpoint. I still think that overall, however, 100 percent logical life is the best way to self preserve. The prisoners dillema is documented because it is an outlier, where logic would NOT triumph.

But you do have a point. Two logical beings who gathered different information would arrive at different conclusions even if both were driven purely by logic. The geth hivemind would be able to take all of these variables into account for the most complete course of action, but then we're moving farther away from sentience. So perhaps my perfect form of life is nothing more than a computer algorythm, and hence moving towards not being alive at all. It's an interesting predicament.

[FirstCitizen800]

IntrepidDeath wrote...

Also, I can see an easy situation when an illogical species could triumph over a logical one. In the prisoner's dilemma, the logical choice for everyone involved is to betray the others, but if they were illogical, and none of them betrayed the others, then everyone benefits. That is, of course, assuming that the primary motivation for all involved in the prisoner's dilemma is personal benefit.

Good point. Also, a lot depends on how 'social' the geth are. Organics tend to hold an interest in both personal survival and the survival of 'the group' and it is not always predictable which will triumph in an organic's calculation. Some will save themselves by letting 'the group' die, others will save 'the group' by letting themselves die. Would a perfectly logical species display this type of unpredictability, or could you predictably determine that either the individual unit or group would come first. Uniformity in preservation priority could prove an exploitable weakness. Also, how does a completely logical being account for and adjust to the illogical actions of others?

[FirstCitizen800]

sirisaacx wrote...

IntrepidDeath wrote...

sirisaacx wrote...

Well what Bioware has written might not be what would actually occur in reality, because a perfectly logical species could NOT come to two conclusions unless each had a 50 percent probability of success. One can only assume the geth are not purely logical. I find it hard to surmise any advantages emotion might have in self preservation over a 100 percent logical machine.

See, the thing about logic is that you always have to start with assumptions. If these assumptions differ for two people, the logical conclusions that arise from these assumptions can also differ. The heretics had code that caused, essentially, their assumptions to be different from normal geth in a way that caused them to behave in a rather unpleasant manner.

Also, I can see an easy situation when an illogical species could triumph over a logical one. In the prisoner's dilemma, the logical choice for everyone involved is to betray the others, but if they were illogical, and none of them betrayed the others, then everyone benefits. That is, of course, assuming that the primary motivation for all involved in the prisoner's dilemma is personal benefit.

Ah the prisoner's dilemma. I love that one, and it's a fantastic counterpoint. I still think that overall, however, 100 percent logical life is the best way to self preserve. The prisoners dillema is documented because it is an outlier, where logic would NOT triumph.

But you do have a point. Two logical beings who gathered different information would arrive at different conclusions even if both were driven purely by logic. The geth hivemind would be able to take all of these variables into account for the most complete course of action, but then we're moving farther away from sentience. So perhaps my perfect form of life is nothing more than a computer algorythm, and hence moving towards not being alive at all. It's an interesting predicament.

Again, I kind of wonder how the perfect algorythim is much of an improvement over the perfect virus. ;P

[FirstCitizen800]

Night folks, need to take off, but it's been fun.

[sirisaacx]

FirstCitizen800 wrote...

Night folks, need to take off, but it's been fun.

I as well. I think we've probably taken this just about as far as it will go anyway. All sides have presented their points well but anything else is closer to speculation than debate. It's been a treat though. Great talking with you guys.

[IntrepidDeath]

sirisaacx wrote...

Ah the prisoner's dilemma. I love that one, and it's a fantastic counterpoint. I still think that overall, however, 100 percent logical life is the best way to self preserve. The prisoners dillema is documented because it is an outlier, where logic would NOT triumph.

But you do have a point. Two logical beings who gathered different information would arrive at different conclusions even if both were driven purely by logic. The geth hivemind would be able to take all of these variables into account for the most complete course of action, but then we're moving farther away from sentience. So perhaps my perfect form of life is nothing more than a computer algorythm, and hence moving towards not being alive at all. It's an interesting predicament.

The prisoner's dilemma might not actually be too much of an outlier. Humans, theoretically at least, have done as well as they have due to their tendency toward social interaction, driven in part by empathy. I'm certainly not going to posit that a perfectly logical race would have faired better through similar beginnings. I will say though, that if the sentient race is so severely advanced that it doesn't need to be concerned with problems introduced from outside the race (environmental, conflicts with other races, etc.), it would probably benefit more from being perfectly logical than being illogical. Without that caveat, I just don't think we have enough knowledge on the topic to be able to determine anything with real certainty.