115 réponses à ce sujet

[lillitheris]

Thoughts_My_Aim wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

I may have gotten lost in your tasty analogy But it doesn't really matter whether the idea is actually silly, in this case (more formally, only the validity of the argument matters, not its soundness).

Essentially: if C presents a problem, and then a solution, the solution must actually solve the problem whether or not it's real. In this case, I'm not (quite) sure that it does.

Actually, I think we're good here. If the problem is not real, then by strict formal logic, any solution is a solution (and also not a solution).

I *think* (I'm a bit out of my depth here, I admit) that this is called the Principle of Explosion - a false statement implies any statement ("if the sky is green then I am Dracula" is a true statement because the sky is not green, and therefore whether or not I am Dracula is not at issue here).

Hm, no, not quite. Let's go back to cupcakes.

Problem: Some day, the Best Cupcake Ever will destroy the universe.
Solution: Remove all ovens so that cupcakes can't be made.

The solution is incorrect or, in this case, incomplete. It does not prevent the creation of cupcakes.

In our case, synthesis is posited as a solution to a problem. I'm questioning whether it solves the problem in the limited form – regardless of whether the problem is real or not.

Edit: but this part of the discussion belongs in the other thread Spoiler avoidance is hard.

Modifié par lillitheris, 14 avril 2012 - 10:56 .

[EHondaMashButton]

Thoughts_My_Aim wrote...
Stuff...

Remember that
a) You're basing your assessment on the synthetic/organic conflict on 2 examples the geth and EDI  vs. the starchild's unknown.  Could be 1 example could be a billion.  We have no idea how real this problem is.  Only that it is unacceptable to be on the recieving end of his "solution."  

Remember we're a species that holds hunting season to keep species X from decimating the environment and killing species Y and Z, and ultimately starving species X in the process.  I doubt it'd sound too logical if we had to explain ourselves to species X. 

You're dealing with an A.I. You have no idea how advanced or primitive its logic is. You have no idea if it is capable of empathy, or even values life beyond being "preserved" at any cost. You have no idea if it even is an A.I. or if it was just programmed with the directive to save organics from synthetics, and this is the only solution it arrived at.

[Wulfram]

General User wrote...

The thing that gets me is that, under the Reaper's plan organics aren't actually begin preserved at all. They are being converted into another form.

At best, the Reapers are "preserving" organics in the same way taking a picture of a painting preserves the painting. At worst, organics are "preserved" by Reapers in the same way a lion preserves a gazelle.

And even that might be giving the Reaper too much credit. Given that the form organics are being converted into is under the control of another being (the StarKid), neither an organic's physical, nor psychological essence is being preserved. All that remains is data. And, given that the Reapers are clearly shackled in some way to the Catalyst's will, even that much is dubious since it is unclear how much of that data a given Reaper would have access to.

It's fairly clear that Starkid has adopted a totally distorted definition of "preserved".  But Starkid being nuts - or rather, Starkid being incapable of understanding what Organics value about their lives and civilisations - isn't a bad thing for the story.  He's not supposed to be a good guy.

[Thoughts_My_Aim]

lillitheris wrote...

Hm, no, not quite. Let's go back to cupcakes.

Problem: Some day, the Best Cupcake Ever will destroy the universe.
Solution: Remove all ovens so that cupcakes can't be made.

The solution is incorrect or, in this case, incomplete. It does not prevent the creation of cupcakes.

In our case, synthesis is posited as a solution to a problem. I'm questioning whether it solves the problem in the limited form – regardless of whether the problem is real or not.

Edit: but this part of the discussion belongs in the other thread Spoiler avoidance is hard.

Fair enough, I see your point. Although in this case I genuninely do not think it is possible to propose any plan that will prevent the creation of the Most Delicious Cupcake, particularly since we lack any information about what it even *takes* to bake the Most Delicious Cupcake.

[EHondaMashButton]

Thoughts_My_Aim wrote...

You don't get to choose whether your partner's nanites get passed on to your kid, but you do get to choose not to have kids with somebody who has nanites. Or, for that matter, to fight an actual war to exterminate the people with nanintes.

And thats fine for your generation.  Keep that going for 100 generations and you inbreed and die out.

I already addressed the war thing earlier.  If it were visually detectable, you'd kill all the visually detectable ones, and leave the indetectable ones.  Thats how natural selection works.  Also we're talking about somewhat of a viral process here.  You'd have to quarantine your entire planet or live like quarians for the rest of eternity.  I don't even know what you'd eat since "organic life" includes plants and animals, which won't be as picky about their partners.

And all that aside, presumably you'd be going against a force with networked communication, and some benefits of being synthetic.  The glaring disadvantages would get weeded out by evolution or upgrades right?  Isn't that generally how these things work in sci-fi? Unless we've merged with the derpiest synthetics in history or something.

[Thoughts_My_Aim]

EHondaMashButton wrote...

And thats fine for your generation.  Keep that going for 100 generations and you inbreed and die out.

Pretty sure that's not how it works either. Humanity hasn't gone extinct as a result of refusing to breed with things that aren't human.

I already addressed the war thing earlier.  If it were visually detectable, you'd kill all the visually detectable ones, and leave the indetectable ones.  Thats how natural selection works.  Also we're talking about somewhat of a viral process here.  You'd have to quarantine your entire planet or live like quarians for the rest of eternity.  I don't even know what you'd eat since "organic life" includes plants and animals, which won't be as picky about their partners.

Except now this has no relationship to the original Synthesis ending, now you're proposing the creation of a nanite plague that ... does nothing? Does something? I'm really not sure.

And all that aside, presumably you'd be going against a force with networked communication, and some benefits of being synthetic.  The glaring disadvantages would get weeded out by evolution or upgrades right?  Isn't that generally how these things work in sci-fi? Unless we've merged with the derpiest synthetics in history or something.

And at that point all you've done is go from "synthetics destroy organics" to "hybrids destroy organics and synthetics". I am not sure how this is a step up.

[shenryo1983]

Beast Machines with a little bit of the Architect.

[EHondaMashButton]

Thoughts_My_Aim wrote...
Pretty sure that's not how it works either. Humanity hasn't gone extinct as a result of refusing to breed with things that aren't human.

We're talking about drastically reducing the size of the human gene pool you consider acceptable as a partners.  Not the same as not mating with aliens. 

Ehondamashbutton
I already addressed the war thing earlier.  If it were visually detectable, you'd kill all the visually detectable ones, and leave the indetectable ones.  Thats how natural selection works.  Also we're talking about somewhat of a viral process here.  You'd have to quarantine your entire planet or live like quarians for the rest of eternity.  I don't even know what you'd eat since "organic life" includes plants and animals, which won't be as picky about their partners.

Thoughts_My_Aim wrote... 
Except now this has no relationship to the original Synthesis ending, now you're proposing the creation of a nanite plague that ... does nothing? Does something? I'm really not sure.

I guess you missed the title of this thread: "Let's play explain synthesis"?  I posted mine one page back 2nd from the top, its pretty long.  Perhaps you could consider it a plague, boils down to nanite version of the genophage/cure.

Even if you go by the original, the kid said all life becomes organic/synthetic.  Are animals and plants not organic now?  Are we assuming organic holdouts can digest semi-synthetic food after whatever is in their fridge runs out? 

Honestly I don't care if there is consent or not, that's part of what makes the choice interesting.  Even if you gave a choice, ultimately I feel like you chose for the species on an evolutionary timescale.

Thoughts_My_Aim wrote...  
And at that point all you've done is go from "synthetics destroy organics" to "hybrids destroy organics and synthetics". I am not sure how this is a step up.

Its not about being a step up for you, or making you feel good, its about explaining the mechanism in a way that is plausible from a sci-fi perspective, and turning this from space magic into a coherent narrative.  

The starchild's programming is to preserve the greatest number of organic life from destruction at the hands of synthetics.  Not to be empathic with us.  Not to save everyone.  To prevent total organic annihilation.  Clearly he operates on the turian logic of "cold hard math"  survival of many > survival of few.  

Note it isn't possible to convince him to change his mind.  He's just like samara.  His solutions are for him to shut down to avoid enforcing his code (destroy), allow you to write a new code(control) or to accept a loophole (synthesis). 

The new possibility of the cruicible is that he considers semi-organic life is equivalent to organic life, and that if this new hybrid does create synthetic life, that either a) they won't be a threat at all because of common understanding or that it won't be a total annihilation because of increased ability to fight back against synthetics.  He's weighed the probabilities and feels that the hybrid is superior. If the organic holdouts get themselves killed, so be it, the kid did what it calculated was in the best interest for all, and organics go in in hybrid form.   

Modifié par EHondaMashButton, 14 avril 2012 - 11:58 .

[lillitheris]

@EHondaMashButton The problem we have with a coherent narrative is that we must work within the existing framework…that's why an intermediate (potential) war isn't really a feasible solution. It needs to somehow solve the problem in one swoop.

[EHondaMashButton]

Okay going back to your first post

lillitheris wrote...

One of the bigger problems is Synthesis, the unification or bringing closer of synthetics and non-synthetics.

 Let's just say that we don't have to account for necessarily instantly transforming everything in the universe. Whatever transformation there is can be gradual.

Synthesis can't guarantee that new, noncompliant life (or synthetics) won't emerge at some point in the future. The only way to do that would be to affect subatomic levels, but that's not really a high-level concept, it would at best generate some kind of a universal harmony between all things (quantum entanglement?).

So, we have a rather intractable problem here. The one thing that IS to our benefit is that we don't necessarily need to see the Synthesis quite through (if rejecting the instatransformation – which really does not make sense, it's not like there's random ambient silicon floating around to self-construct into cybernetics), but we need to set the stage for it somehow. That requires ‘understanding’ i.e. coming up with some reasonable direction it'll take.

So, your thoughts…please?

  

The impression I got from your first post is that you wanted to construct a scientifically plausible explanation for the green beam transmutation space magic, and that you were okay with it not being instant. 

lillitheris wrote... 
@EHondaMashButton The problem we have with a coherent narrative is that we must work within the existing framework…that's why an intermediate (potential) war isn't really a feasible solution. It needs to somehow solve the problem in one swoop.

But now I'm confused because now you say it needs to somehow solve the problem in one swoop, which is neither plausible nor explicitly stated by the starchild. What exactly is the existing framework?  The starchilld gives you like 3 lines of dialouge and the game ends abruptly before establishing what happens afterwards. All we know is Joker and EDI seem happy. 

Now it sounds like we're filling in the blanks ourselves of what happens afterwards and arbitrarily adding the stipulation that synthesis = universal peace. Which would either require loss of free will or loss of emotion and organic traits like love, hate, friendship, jealously, pride, etc. 

Shepard addressed this exactly.  
Shepard:  "And there will be peace?"
Starchild: "The cycle will end. Synthesis is the final evolution of life"

Starchild never said there will be universal peace or that the solution would be instant.  Please detail the framework, because it sounds like we're making synthesis=instant rainbows & icecream for all.  At best all we can say is the starchild believes synthesis does not result in annihilation of organics by synthetics.

Modifié par EHondaMashButton, 15 avril 2012 - 02:39 .

[lillitheris]

The fundamental problem is synthetics vs. organics. The problem is not solved until the distinction is no more. Therefore, the distinction must be removed, and if it's not fast enough, the problem remains and the conflict may happen. Therefore, the problem is not solved.

Nobody is talking about unicorns, please don't resort to that.

[TMA LIVE]

I think the problem is solved if Organics and Synthetics now have a complete understanding of each other, and can rely on one another. Example, is it now possible for EDI and Joker to share data, and create their own AI life form?

[Gogzilla]

So no one here has played Deus Ex before ?

The exact details in ME3 are ambiguous and no doubt that was intended.
Too many unknowns , trying to make sense of it beyond what it meant as one of the solutions to the conflict between Organics and Synthetics would yield little.

I don't see what can be gleaned from it beyond the metaphysical idea that it is.

[GriffenHawkeSheperd]

I thought that synthesis was the last step in evolution?

[EHondaMashButton]

lillitheris wrote...

The fundamental problem is synthetics vs. organics. The problem is not solved until the distinction is no more. Therefore, the distinction must be removed, and if it's not fast enough, the problem remains and the conflict may happen. Therefore, the problem is not solved.

Nobody is talking about unicorns, please don't resort to that.

The problem with your interpretation is that semi-synthetic cerberus scientists can still create fully synthetic A.I. a month later. Now your distinction is has returned, and your solution falls apart.

And this interpretation of the solution does nothing to address the fact that you may have backstabbed the krogan, who are now semi-synthetic and potentially smart enough to cure the genophage themselves, exact revenge on the salarians and turians, and overrun the galaxy with their insane reproductive rate. Or the batarians. Or the Yahg.

The fundamental problem isn't "conflict" itself, but that organics are no match for our synthetic creations, and we would be totally annihilated.  If he were concerned about preventing "chaos/conflict" in general, he'd have to intervene more than every 50k years.  The quarians and geth have been in conflict for 300 years so clearly his definition of "fast enough" is different from yours.

Assuming the problem is conflict and the solution is no conflict all because there is no distinction requires
a) ignoring the plothole that any hybrid can always create pure synthetic a.i. at some point in the future
and
ignoring the fact that organics fight amongst ourselves
and
ignoring the fact that synthetics fight amongst themselves (Legion vs the heretics - who were not indoctrinated)

in order to reach the conclusion that hybrids wouldn't also fight amongst themselves

The only way to ever totally avoid conflict or chaos is to disallow free thought or to impose your will. (Blue choice)

The kid being satisfied with us simply being able to coexist with current life and hold our own or defeat any future synthetic creations is a more plausible interpretation of his solution. He's a pragmatic A.I. trying to save us from ourselves, not an idealist looking to build a utopia.

Modifié par EHondaMashButton, 15 avril 2012 - 03:52 .

[Thoughts_My_Aim]

EHondaMashButton wrote...

The kid being satisfied with us simply being able to coexist with current life and hold our own or defeat any future synthetic creations is a more plausible interpretation of his solution. He's a pragmatic A.I. trying to save us from ourselves, not an idealist looking to build a utopia.

He's not even a pragmatic AI trying to save us from ourselves, he's a deranged AI who has got it into his head that one of two extremely specific things have to happen in order to satisfy some notion of balance that he has once again made up in his head.

[Furtled]

Question: with synthesis does it target all organic life or just sentient life?

So for example are rabbits now transformed along with the humans, and if so can humans still eat them (can humans eat anything living any more or do they turn vegetarian/recharge somehow?), or will the next Mass Effect be bunnies in space as the rest of the galaxy is overrun with the little blighters in some sort of cute and cuddly tribble-like plague?

[EHondaMashButton]

Thoughts_My_Aim wrote...
He's not even a pragmatic AI trying to save us from ourselves, he's a deranged AI who has got it into his head that one of two extremely specific things have to happen in order to satisfy some notion of balance that he has once again made up in his head.

Well honestly we have no idea how advanced or intelligent he is or if he even is an a.i. He seems extremely rigid though, which should probably be interpreted as lazy writing.  But since we're trying to make sense of all this, perhaps he's simply a very basic VI program left by some deranged scientist of an ancient race that almost wiped itself out.  Or like you said, he may be deranged from millions of years of data corruption.  Or he just has no inherent appreciation for the meaning of organic life, like the conversation EDI has with shepard.

But we cannot assume he's made this up.  Without shepard, the quarians likely go to war with the geth, and possibly drag the rest of the council races into it.  Shep's intervention preventing all out war could be common or it could be a once in a million occurance.  And we have no idea what the turians, salarians, tali's dad, cerberus could eventually do with a.i.

Modifié par EHondaMashButton, 15 avril 2012 - 04:09 .

[EHondaMashButton]

Furtled wrote...

Question: with synthesis does it target all organic life or just sentient life?

All life. Organic and Synthetic.

Starchild: "The chain reaction will combine all organic and synthetic life."

[lillitheris]

EHondaMashButton wrote...

The fundamental problem isn't "conflict" itself, but that organics are no match for our synthetic creations, and we would be totally annihilated.

As I said!

…

I have to stress again, that I'm not looking for a sound argument. I'm looking for a valid argument. That is:

Given the premises and the desired outcome, provide a solution that works within that context.

[Ieldra]

TMA LIVE wrote...
I think the problem is solved if Organics and Synthetics now have a complete understanding of each other, and can rely on one another. Example, is it now possible for EDI and Joker to share data, and create their own AI life form?

Exactly. That's what I suggested in my original Synthesis thread. Organics and synthetics do not become indistinguishable, but gain desirable traits from the other side in order to make a basic understanding and acceptance possible. Organics gain the abilitiy to self-improve, synthetics gain empathy, and all become part of an interconnected web of minds which I've called a noosphere (inspired by Siduri's epilogue and a philosophical concept put forward first by Teilhard de Chardin). The "nano-plague" suggested by some would ensure that every intelligent organic and synthetic is affected by the change in a reasonably timeframe. Needn't be instantaneous.

As for reverting, that would only be possible once the nature of the "nano-plague" is understood. Make it high-tech enough, and we can posit that once that understanding is gained, there is no more need for this solution. Both the problem and its solution are limited by the Catalyst's understanding, and there is no way to acccount for anything that occurs once galactic civilization has passed that understanding. None of the solutions need to be eternal because the problem isn't eternal. "Always" means "within a time frame and conceptual framework used by the Catalyst".

[Ieldra]

Furtled wrote...
Question: with synthesis does it target all organic life or just sentient life?

The presentation suggests in targets all life, but the distinction makes no sense for nonsentiant life, so I'm inclined to drop that aspect. See my Synthesis thread (linked in my post above).

[Thoughts_My_Aim]

lillitheris wrote...
I have to stress again, that I'm not looking for a sound argument. I'm looking for a valid argument. That is:

Given the premises and the desired outcome, provide a solution that works within that context.

Isn't the desired outcome circular here though, Synthesis is kind of presented as an end in itself.

[EHondaMashButton]

lillitheris wrote...


I have to stress again, that I'm not looking for a sound argument. I'm looking for a valid argument. That is:

Given the premises and the desired outcome, provide a solution that works within that context.

Okay so we're specifying a desired outcome now.  As long as we can admit this is unicorns and sunshine territory I'm fine with it.  I'll play ball.   

But let me get this off my chest
Even with complete understanding of one another I can't see how you can claim free will yet claim lasting peace at the same time. As long as you have free will you can reach different conclusions.  I can completely understand your argument, yet our differences remain unreconcilable.  Reasonable people will compromise or find another way.  

But unless you take away free will or brainwash people, there will always be someone who just desires power or status or covets their parter or their property or just wants to see the world burn. Or whatever.  Some people desire conflict.  The entire Krogan society is based on conflict. The way this seems to be headed, we're assuming synthesis might grant us enhanced intelligence, then it would enhance animal intelligence also right?  And plants too? Is it not conflict if we need to eat them to live?  I'm not seeing how synthesis interpreted this way addresses any of this. 

rant over, I'll try to come up with something that fits your interpretation

Modifié par EHondaMashButton, 15 avril 2012 - 04:33 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Organics gain the abilitiy to self-improve, synthetics gain empathy, and all become part of an interconnected web of minds which I've called a noosphere (inspired by Siduri's epilogue and a philosophical concept put forward first by Teilhard de Chardin).

I actually meant to jump on two things…one, of course, is the presupposition that synthetics do not have empathy – though it's only a detail, really, I suppose we could come up with some other arbitrary desirable property (or just leave it unsaid).

The second is the limited nature of self-improvement; one of the essential features is basically unlimited improvement. It seems a little odd then, conceptually, that biological features can't be gotten rid of (because that would defeat the point).