115 réponses à ce sujet

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Actually, the persistence problem - as in, necessary propagation of the changes without any possibility of opting out, if that's what you mean - is not such a big problem as it seems. Besides, in my scenario the synthetic symbionts do propagate themselves and affix themselves to the next generation.

Not precisely. By the persistence problem I mean that it's hard to see a (non-atomic/quantum) scenario where either new organic life can't evolve outside its scope; or conversely where synthetic life can't ignore the new constraints.

Nanites could be a partial answer (if we ignore life in other galaxies), but mainly only to the biological problem. They could, theoretically, inhabit the entire galaxy, for all time – big and long as that is – just infecting everything. That still presupposes that they're never circumvented.

Maybe there's no guarantee.

I'm not arguing that it's invalidated by nonpersistence (although it does go against what the Catalyst says). I'm arguing that if it's not persistent, Synthesis becomes a drastically less desirable option to force on everybody.

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it being the “oops” wrong choice – best intentions, doesn't turn out well. But I'd like to see some exposition on that.

Modifié par lillitheris, 14 avril 2012 - 04:27 .

[lillitheris]

That is to say, I'd like to explore the possibility of coming up with a persistent solution, but if (as seems likely) none can be found, then we can reformulate the hypothesis into a nonpersistent template.

The nonperistent option gives us a lot more leeway, then, to sort out the particulars. Nanobots would probably do fine as an explanation, for example.

On the other hand, in that case there needs to be an explanation  for why our initial premise is that it is persistent.

(As always, these are just my opinions, please do challenge them!)

Modifié par lillitheris, 14 avril 2012 - 04:29 .

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

And you decided to post this in a non spoiler forum why?

[TMA LIVE]

What the kid says in a nutshell:

Catalyst: Synthesis.

Shepard: And that is?

Catalyst: Add your energy to the Crucibles. Everything you are will be absorbed, and then sent out. The chain reaction will combined all Synthetic and Organic life into a new frame work. A new DNA.

Shepard: I... don't know...

Catalyst: Why not? Synthetics are already part of you. Can you imagine your life without them?

Shepard: And there will be peace?

Catalyst: The cycle will end. Synthesis is the final evolution of life. But we need each other to make it happen.

---------------

So that's all we got to work with.

Like I said, I don't think robots are suddenly pumped full of Organic Goo magically by a electric blast, that somehow is going to make a heart fit in there.

The framework that's changing is the DNA. And for a Synthetic, I believe it's simply changing their computer coding.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 14 avril 2012 - 04:03 .

[Thoughts_My_Aim]

How about: A Space Wizard Did It. In Space.

Seriously, though, I think this is barking up the wrong tree. Synthesis *is* a Space Magic ending and no amount of technobabble will make it more plausible.

So actually I'd suggest the exact opposite, instead of positing FTL nanomachines, just have everything ascend into white glowy light like the Vorlons or the end of Dark Crystal.

[lillitheris]

Shinian2 wrote...

And you decided to post this in a non spoiler forum why?

Because I figured it'd be possible to avoid spoilers and discuss the issue in general terms…

Although a couple posts could use some redactions.

[Chashan]

I think Synthesis would have made sense if it were similarly executed like the following, only on a galactic scale:

www.youtube.com/watch

(Skip to 1:20 to see what I mean, although the speech of Kain is still beyond awesome.)

Actually, the vague implications at the end of ME3 and the one key argument against the red choice made me go with green first time around...Unlike ME3 however, C&C: Tiberian Sun established the whole ascension-idea throughout the Nod-campaign, and while the definite end result of it, good or bad, is not shown, it's "ambiguous" enough to accomodate both. Not terribly deep, sure, but it works.
Wish the same were true of ME3...

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Actually, the persistence problem - as in, necessary propagation of the changes without any possibility of opting out, if that's what you mean - is not such a big problem as it seems. Besides, in my scenario the synthetic symbionts do propagate themselves and affix themselves to the next generation.

Not precisely. By the persistence problem I mean that it's hard to see a (non-atomic/quantum) scenario where either new organic life can't evolve outside its scope; or conversely where synthetic life can't ignore the new constraints.

Nanites could be a partial answer (if we ignore life in other galaxies), but mainly only to the biological problem. They could, theoretically, inhabit the entire galaxy, for all time – big and long as that is – just infecting everything. That still presupposes that they're never circumvented.

As I said, every option has the potential for a backfire. Accepting a risk is is *not* an "oops wrong choice" scenario any more than "Shepard restarts a Reaperizing cycle" scenario for Control is. Just a worst-case one. I don't think we should base our scenarios on a worst-case assumption. That way organic life will inevitably become extinct after you choose Destroy.

As for ensuring a measure of persistence (there can never be absolute persistence), I'm basing my scenario on the assumption that both organics and synthetics have something to gain from the Synthesis. Organic structures are based on evolutionary algorithms, synthetic structures on design, regardless of biochemistry. Both have their advantages depending on the tasks you put them to and the environmental conditions. Since you can design structures in a way that makes them evolve, and evolutionary algorithms can occasionally produce structures indistinguishable from designed ones, at some point the dichotomy between organic and synthetic becomes meaningless. The important point is to prevent the need to build "pure" synthetics on one side and suppress the desire to revert to "pure" organics on the other. The former is done by giving any organism the ability to self-improve or to connect with others to form a gestalt mind that can process what's beyond the capacity of individuals (see Siduri's scenario for this "noosphere" concept), and the latter can be ensured by the omnipresence of the nanonic symbionts in a kind of artificial panspermia scenario which would also be a good explanation of what the Device engenders anyway.

Edit:
Note that the whole organic/synthetic dichotomy is based on a misconception anyway: It is totally possible that organics understand themselves well enough to self-improve without synthetic symbionts. It is also possible that synthetics will *not* understand themselves well enough to self-improve. We have to accept as a premise that organics will not understand themselves well enough to self-improve as efficiently as synthetics could before they build synthetics that can understand themselves well enough to self-improve. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 avril 2012 - 04:58 .

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

lillitheris wrote...

Shinian2 wrote...

And you decided to post this in a non spoiler forum why?

Because I figured it'd be possible to avoid spoilers and discuss the issue in general terms…

Although a couple posts could use some redactions.

I'm not trying to rag on you, really.. however.. the fact that synthesis ending exists IS a spoiler.  

[TMA LIVE]

As for why synthesis is needed to create peace. Well, as some have already said, peace is never a guaranty. But it eliminates superiority, and puts us all on the same ball park. A machine can't dream the same way we dream. A machine can't fantasies the same way we can. A machine can't think beyond it's programmed logical understanding, unless it's programmed to do otherwise. A machine can't bread a child. A machine can't self-evolve automatically, without the need of outsourced programs to do the evolution for it (example, I can grow another arm because that's my evolution. While a machines adds it as a choice, and needs it build on by a manufacturer).

There will always be major differences between us and them. But synthesis could create a connection between us. Like sharing data.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 14 avril 2012 - 04:55 .

[lillitheris]

Shinian2 wrote...

I'm not trying to rag on you, really.. however.. the fact that synthesis ending exists IS a spoiler.  

I suppose you might be right. My reasoning was that if someone didn't know what “synthesis” was, the topic was no spoiler, and conversely if they did…well, they already knew.

[Ianamus]

I can't think of any way to possibly explain it, but I have further questions about the very concept:

• Does it effect all organic life, or just sentient organic life? 
• Does it affect plant life? The trees in the ending seem to be Normal, which just confuses things further
• Will races still be able to procreate? Will the offspring be organic or synthetic?
• If organic life originated on it's own in the first place won't organic life still be created, evolve and develop? In this case will it be forced to become part synthetic as well? If so will the current races of the galaxy be any better than the Reapers?

And then there are the numerous social issues. Not everyone would want to become part synthetic, and imagine having all your loved ones killed and then being turned into a machine... the suicide count must be enourmous.

Hoesntly, I just call it space magic  and don't think about it- because the more I think about it the worse it gets.  

Modifié par EJ107, 14 avril 2012 - 05:07 .

[aries1001]

Yes, but this seems different from using electric energy to turn someone into a husk using nanobots to do it after the enery bolt hit the person, does it not? The catalyst asking Shepard to melt his energy into the Crucible means that Shepard really become the Creator of the new Synthethis lifeform, the combination of synthethics and organic life shaped and wielded into one. And as we all by know, the created will always rebel against their Creator(s).... Just a little thought here...

Anyway, as I understand how the process works, it works on a deep molecular level in the dna of people and the "dna" of the synthethics - using the word *dna* here since I don't if synthetics, e.g. AI or machines have a dna-structure - changing both of their dna (to use this) drastically so the organics and the synthethics dna would combine and slide it another on this molecular dna level. This could mean that the changes might not occur or take place straigt away, but imply that perhaps changes would take place during one or two generations, since organics and synthethics could now mate and get little, if not blue children, then little synthorg children. This process could of course also take place over several hundred years or even thousands of years.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for ensuring a measure of persistence (there can never be absolute persistence), I'm basing my scenario on the assumption that both organics and synthetics have something to gain from the Synthesis. Organic structures are based on evolutionary algorithms, synthetic structures on design, regardless of biochemistry. Both have their advantages depending on the tasks you put them to and the environmental conditions. Since you can design structures in a way that makes them evolve, and evolutionary algorithms can occasionally produce structures indistinguishable from designed ones, at some point the dichotomy between organic and synthetic becomes meaningless. The important point is to prevent the need to build "pure" synthetics on one side and suppress the desire to revert to "pure" organics on the other. The former is done by giving any organism the ability to self-improve or to connect with others to form a gestalt mind that can process what's beyond the capacity of individuals (see Siduri's scenario for this "noosphere" concept), and the latter can be ensured by the omnipresence of the nanonic symbionts in a kind of artificial panspermia scenario which would also be a good explanation of what the Device engenders anyway.

Hm, well, I understand the reasoning. I just think that it can be summed up as “let's turn organics into hybrids and see what happens”.

Nothing wrong with that, mind you, but it's entirely different from (what I perceived was) the implication that it'd solve the problem for good.

The reason why I want to nail it down isn't that I really care about the explanation, but that it affects the balance calculus that this thread is an offshoot of.

[vware]

TMA LIVE wrote...

I brainstormed a few of my ideas of it here:

http://social.biowar.../index/10890419

But short version, we know the Reapers have a method of using electric energy to turn an organic into a husk. We've seen this in Evolution.



Going back to Retribution on how Grayson was turned into a Reaper agent, a machine was used to hit him with a powerful electrical current. And then feeding him nanotechnology, which transformed the host.

As TIM describes:

"They've combined entangled particles with self-replicating nanotechnology, allowing them to infect, transform, and dominate organic hosts even while they're trapped in dark space."

"You're being implanted with self-replicating nanides. Their numbers will increase exponentially as they graft themselves onto your neurons and synapses. Eventually they will spread throughout your body, transforming you into a tool of the Reapers. You will be repurposed into a synthetic-organic hybrid unlike anything any of the Council races could possibly create."

If I had to guess, the blast could possibly be carrying nanotechnology, that attaches itself to the host magnetically, and quickly spread, and infects. Transforming the host into a hybrid.

Now when it comes to the Synthetics, on their end, I think nanomachines or the energy is simply rewriting their data. I think when it comes to a machine, the equivalent of their DNA is their computer coding. And it's re-writing it into a new framework, based on the essence of Shepard, the orgnaic.

Pretty decent.

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for ensuring a measure of persistence (there can never be absolute persistence), I'm basing my scenario on the assumption that both organics and synthetics have something to gain from the Synthesis. Organic structures are based on evolutionary algorithms, synthetic structures on design, regardless of biochemistry. Both have their advantages depending on the tasks you put them to and the environmental conditions. Since you can design structures in a way that makes them evolve, and evolutionary algorithms can occasionally produce structures indistinguishable from designed ones, at some point the dichotomy between organic and synthetic becomes meaningless. The important point is to prevent the need to build "pure" synthetics on one side and suppress the desire to revert to "pure" organics on the other. The former is done by giving any organism the ability to self-improve or to connect with others to form a gestalt mind that can process what's beyond the capacity of individuals (see Siduri's scenario for this "noosphere" concept), and the latter can be ensured by the omnipresence of the nanonic symbionts in a kind of artificial panspermia scenario which would also be a good explanation of what the Device engenders anyway.

Hm, well, I understand the reasoning. I just think that it can be summed up as “let's turn organics into hybrids and see what happens”.

Actually no. I change synthetics as well. The problem is that we can only hypothesize about which advantages synthetics would gain from becoming hybrids. We blithely assume that they have the potential to self-improve beyond anything an organic could ever comprehend, and we give that ability to organics as well. That should ensure a measure of balance. The other side gains empathy, but other than that I can only speculate. We'd have to posit specific organic attributes, which I am loathe to do.

Nothing wrong with that, mind you, but it's entirely different from (what I perceived was) the implication that it'd solve the problem for good.

Do I understand you correctly in that you want a scenario where it is impossible for pure synthetics and organics ever to exist again?

That's a tall order.

According to my original scenario, the result of the Synthesis means "partaking in each other's nature", in order to remove the master/slave mentality which creates the conflict, the "they're just machines" mentality on one side and the "they're dangerous would-be slave masters" on the other. In addition, I give synthetics empathy and organics the ability to self-improve. I don't see why anything more should be necessary. Removing the desire to create pure organic and pure synthetic intelligent organisms should be enough, physical impossibility is not achievable I think, not with the kind of technology a post-Synthesis civilization would have anyway.

For anything more, we'd have to debate the nature of synthetic and organic people at length, and that's just as a prerequisite. We'd probably undermine the whole difference between the two sides in the process which would not be helpful.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 avril 2012 - 05:30 .

[Thoughts_My_Aim]

lillitheris wrote...

Nothing wrong with that, mind you, but it's entirely different from (what I perceived was) the implication that it'd solve the problem for good.

I think you have your work cut out here.

You seem to be trying to explain how something which you know nothing about solves a problem which you also know nothing about, and which may indeed *not actually exist*.

In order to explain how Synthesis solves "the problem" you would first need to demonstrate that "the problem" exists, then that it can be "solved" and finally that "Synthesis" (whatever that is) is a solution.

[matthewmi]

Explaining how synthesis works doesn't make it any less morally wrong to choose that path. I would never make a choice to alter every living thing in the galaxy without consent. Destroy is only choice I can make in game synthesis is evil, control too ambiguous.

[The Spamming Troll]

ive always wanted to impregnate a toaster, and synthesis is the solution.

[Thoughts_My_Aim]

matthewmi wrote...

Explaining how synthesis works doesn't make it any less morally wrong to choose that path. I would never make a choice to alter every living thing in the galaxy without consent. Destroy is only choice I can make in game synthesis is evil, control too ambiguous.

Also this.

Although I found Control more palatable than Destroy.

[lillitheris]

[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...

Actually no. I change synthetics as well. The problem is that we can only hypothesize about which advantages synthetics would gain from becoming hybrids. We blithely assume that they have the potential to self-improve beyond anything an organic could ever comprehend, and we give that ability to organics as well. That should ensure a measure of balance. The other side gains empathy, but other than that I can only speculate. We'd have to posit specific organic attributes, which I am loathe to do.[/quote]

Sure, and I have similar reservations about this parity. The latter part was the more important, however.

[quote]Nothing wrong with that, mind you, but it's entirely different from (what I perceived was) the implication that it'd solve the problem for good.[/quote]

Do I understand you correctly in that you want a scenario where it is impossible for pure synthetics and organics ever to exist again?[/quote]

Want? No It's just a different value proposition, affecting the overall balancing. If it turns out that it's not possible, the balance needs to be reassessed.

[quote]According to my original scenario, the result of the Synthesis means "partaking in each other's nature", in order to remove the master/slave mentality which creates the conflict, the "they're just machines" mentality on one side and the "they're dangerous would-be slave masters" on the other.
[/quote]

I find this very limiting, or limited. Not your reasoning, that is, just the premises that we're presented. It seems that AIs are equated with VIs way too much…there's no reason why an AI could not have the equivalent of emotions, for example.

Fortunately, I don't really need to think it through that far A reasonable amount of information can be provided on the basis of e.g. nanotech, leaving the rest for speculation.

[lillitheris]

Thoughts_My_Aim wrote...

You seem to be trying to explain how something which you know nothing about solves a problem which you also know nothing about, and which may indeed *not actually exist*.

Succinct. Pretty much, yes.

Now, like I said, I don't really need to completely solve the problem, be it permanent or not. I just need enough to work on how that affects the immediate future. The distant future is only a factor inasmuch I need to re-evaluate the desirability of synthesis.

Right now it's looking an awful lot like there's no reasonable way that synthesis could be considered to be a permanent solution to the organic/synthetic conflict.

[Sebbe1337o]

imo synthesis = everyone becomes a husk, eventually.

[Pride Demon]

Fawx9 wrote...

Even if that were the case it doesn't sovle the creator vs created problem.

A rogue group of scients, who I shall called Ingen, decide to make a reasearch lab that deals with this new DNA structure. This one Ingen scients thinks that with this new structure it is possible to create life and goes band recreates the dinosaurs. Little does he know the new DNA structure allows them to fly and breath in space along with giving them high level intellignece.

What stops the dinosaurs from taking over?

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER


Nothing, but dinosaurs aren't synthetics, and the creator vs. created only accounted for that (as narrow as it may appear), no "organic creates another organic that destroys him" scenario is considered in the reapers' plan; the Reapers want to preserve organics from synthetics, not each other, even if one organic engineered another, and since actual "organics" no longer exists, the Reapers lose their job.
I guess Harby goes back to the Citadel wearing a giant hobo coat and stacks a cardboard sign on its head with "Will ASSUME CONTROL, for food" written on it...

And for that matter, Shepard may not even care about the created vs. creator conundrum at all, all he/she wants is to stop the reapers and their cycle, and all three endings apparently do that, in different ways...

SPOILER END HERE

Modifié par Pride Demon, 14 avril 2012 - 06:17 .

[Thoughts_My_Aim]

lillitheris wrote...
Succinct. Pretty much, yes.

Now, like I said, I don't really need to completely solve the problem, be it permanent or not. I just need enough to work on how that affects the immediate future. The distant future is only a factor inasmuch I need to re-evaluate the desirability of synthesis.

Fair enough, in terms of desirability I'm very much with the guy upthread who pointed out that Synthesis is undesirable for basic reasons of consent.

Right now it's looking an awful lot like there's no reasonable way that synthesis could be considered to be a permanent solution to the organic/synthetic conflict.

I suspect that's the case. Then again, I've never seen any reasonable way the organic/synthetic conflict could be said to exist in the first place.