115 réponses à ce sujet

[lillitheris]

EHondaMashButton wrote...

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.  

Again, no. If you want to get into the specifics of what the desirable properties are, hop on over to the other thread in the spoiler forum

[Ieldra]

EHondaMashButton wrote...

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.

I don't lasting peace is necessary.  All that's necessary is that any conflict stops at the threshold of extinction. Complete understanding can do that. With understanding, any extinction scenarios will only hatch in the minds of psychopaths, and these should be an a minority small enough that they don't threaten the whole.

[EHondaMashButton]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I don't lasting peace is necessary.  All that's necessary is that any conflict stops at the threshold of extinction. Complete understanding can do that. With understanding, any extinction scenarios will only hatch in the minds of psychopaths, and these should be an a minority small enough that they don't threaten the whole.

That post was in response to the OP's stipulation that the solution eliminate conflict in "one fell swoop."  I'm fine with conflict that stays contained, and I'm fine with complete understanding making war rare and less extreme.  

What I have a problem with is when it gets taken to the point of complete understanding=no conflict ever, while still claiming free thought and independent personalities.  Some personality types would use complete understanding as a weapon, some differences are irreconcilable.  
I'm sceptical that a few psychopaths couldn't utterly dominate such a peaceful utopia.  

Remember the race Javik talked about?
Javik: The Synril claimed to have found the path to eternal peace.  
Garrus:  What hapenned?  
Javik:  The Ditakur preferred war and wiped them out.

Modifié par EHondaMashButton, 15 avril 2012 - 05:03 .

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...

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).

Would it? For those already on the path of self-improvement, the distinction will eventually become meaningless anyway. The only way organic life is special is that it can spontaneously grow from non-living matter. So what's needed is to ensure that this is still possible, that new life can still come into being and evolve towards sentience. For a post-Synthesis sentient, It's quite possible that all that will be organic is its past. The mind will be shaped by that past, but the chemistry had moved on.

Admittedly that's not an exactly intuitive interpretation, but chemistry is really nothing special. There must be some other defining distinction between the two domains of life. I have proposed a "line of ancestry going back to a synthetic created by organics" for a synthetic, and a "line of ancestry going back to a self-improved organic" for organics. Regardless of chemistry and mode of reproduction of individuals of subsequent generations.

[lillitheris]

Gogzilla wrote...

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.

This is sci-fi. There should be something resembling plausibility in it The few hints we got from the original (instant transformation of all DNA, everywhere, forever) were just ludicrous.

Plus, we already have a mostly functioning framework now

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
It seems a little odd then, conceptually, that biological features can't be gotten rid of (because that would defeat the point).

Would it? For those already on the path of self-improvement, the distinction will eventually become meaningless anyway. The only way organic life is special is that it can spontaneously grow from non-living matter. So what's needed is to ensure that this is still possible, that new life can still come into being and evolve towards sentience. For a post-Synthesis sentient, It's quite possible that all that will be organic is its past. The mind will be shaped by that past, but the chemistry had moved on.

Yes, I think it would –  given the premise that the way to solve the synthetic-organic conflict is a hybrid. Everyone eventually becoming synthetic would invalidate that solution (although it might otherwise be a good thing).

It's a good point about new life (also new synthetic life?), and I wonder that given an essentially universal nanobot coverage, would that require some kind of a “prime directive” thing where they won't affect certain types of organisms. If they do, then it's not really natural evolution.

Admittedly that's not an exactly intuitive interpretation, but chemistry is really nothing special. There must be some other defining distinction between the two domains of life.

Yep. I dunno if there really is, given sufficiently advanced synthetics, but we'll at least have to assume one hehe.

[lillitheris]

EHondaMashButton wrote...

That post was in response to the OP's stipulation that the solution eliminate conflict in "one fell swoop." 

You should read that post again

[EHondaMashButton]

lillitheris wrote...

EHondaMashButton wrote...

That post was in response to the OP's stipulation that the solution eliminate conflict in "one fell swoop." 

You should read that post again

lillitheris wrote... 
an intermediate (potential) war isn't really a feasible solution. It needs to somehow solve the problem in one swoop. 

[lillitheris]

I didn't think the post was that unclear.

The problem [synthetic-organic conflict] needs to be solved in one swoop because if it isn't, then there are still synthetics and organics, and the problem [synthetic-organic conflict] can explode.

[EHondaMashButton]

lillitheris wrote...

I didn't think the post was that unclear.

The problem [synthetic-organic conflict] needs to be solved in one swoop because if it isn't, then there are still synthetics and organics, and the problem [synthetic-organic conflict] can explode.

lillitheris wrote...
The fundamental problem is synthetics vs. organics. The problem is not solved until the distinction is no more

But your interpretation of the problem is fundamentally unsolvable. 

After the distinction is no more....
You could still create fully synthetic A.I. that you do not have true understanding with  (ex EDI vs Geth)
You could still fight amongst yourselves despite  true understanding
You could still evolve into fully synthetic on a planet that became too extreme for organic life
You could still evolve into fully organic on a planet with no electromagnetic shielding to protect a.i. components
You could evolve into a different type of hybrid from other hybrids to the point where you no longer understand them

Saying true understanding= end of organic/synthetic conflict doesn't change any of these things and introduces  even more plot holes such as free will, personality vs hive mind, etc.

Modifié par EHondaMashButton, 15 avril 2012 - 07:15 .

[lillitheris]

^ Well, yeah, that's the problem we've been trying to solve here How can the parameters given be filled? (They don't include “no fighting at all”, by the by.)

[Thoughts_My_Aim]

New solution: Semantic Synthesis.

We simply redefine our terms such that "synthetic" and "organic" are no longer treated as distinct concepts and instead refer to everything as a "hybrid" (pure synthetics and pure organics are merely hybrids which tilt very strongly one way or the other).

Since we have defined "synthetics" and "organics" out of existence we have, operationally, removed the possibility of synthetics ever destroying organics. Even if somebody creates a hyperpowered AI which annihilates all other life in the galaxy, this would merely be a synthetic-dominant-hybrid eliminating other hybrids. There would be no problem with this.

[darthoptimus003]

i thought of this when i seen the synth ending
"we are BORG: we are shepard"
i know right pulled for star trek
thats what i took from that scene

[Furtled]

@EHondaMashButton & @leldra2

Cheers for clarifying, I'll go back through the other thread.

[EHondaMashButton]

Thoughts_My_Aim wrote...

New solution: Semantic Synthesis.

We simply redefine our terms such that "synthetic" and "organic" are no longer treated as distinct concepts and instead refer to everything as a "hybrid" (pure synthetics and pure organics are merely hybrids which tilt very strongly one way or the other).

Since we have defined "synthetics" and "organics" out of existence we have, operationally, removed the possibility of synthetics ever destroying organics. Even if somebody creates a hyperpowered AI which annihilates all other life in the galaxy, this would merely be a synthetic-dominant-hybrid eliminating other hybrids. There would be no problem with this.

I said that on pg 4, while ya'll were talking about cupcakes and you were resistant to the substitution of semantics.  This is what the op was referring to when he/she wanted a solution in "one swoop"

As far as I'm concerned the starchild is an A.I. cut in the same mold of the A.I.s that deactivate life pods to preserve the most important.   His job is a numbers game at any cost.  If organics and synthetics are one and the same, then theres no need for the cycle.  We can live in peace as hybrids or fight as hybrids without his interference, as long as there isn't this looming threat of hyperadvanced a.i. we can't hope to survice conflict with.

The way this ending is written, they're not our solutions, they're his solutions, and we're picking from them.  We're creating a problem where there isn't one by ascribing ideals onto him he may not possess, which creates even more plotholes.  

Modifié par EHondaMashButton, 15 avril 2012 - 08:22 .

[lillitheris]

EHondaMashButton wrote...

The way this ending is written, they're not our solutions, they're his solutions, and we're picking from them.  We're creating a problem where there isn't one by ascribing ideals onto him he may not possess, which creates even more plotholes.  

Exactly. The parameters that we need to fill are mostly clear, whether incorrect or not.

…

I admit, the idea of a green beam to remove the words “synthetic” and “organic” from all minds and recordings would probably be just as good.