270 réponses à ce sujet

[Zine2]

humes spork wrote...

This is the question to which you absolutely, positively must answer for that point to be cogent and relevant: why would an actor lie, or need to lie, about an action that is not wrong?

Or rather, taking to heart your attempts to deflect,

Why would an actor engage in self-delusion, or need to engage in self-delusion, over an act that is not wrong?

Again, I find it very funny that you still complain about me "deflecting", when the answer had already been given. I must really assume that this is nothing more than you sour graping.

1) An actor may engage in self-delusion because they do not want to confront the logical inconsistency of their actions; particularly actions that are based on presumptions rather than actul facts. (i.e. Reapers denying they are killing, because they think it's saving the galaxy based on the presumption of an inevitable Organic vs Synthetic conflict) 

2) An actor may engage in self-delusion because it finds that others do no agree with its actions, therefore is must lie in order to trick the others into following its desires. (Reapers seeding Indoc agents to make extermination easier)

So really, stop trying to play these "gotcha" games. You're terrible at them. That's I caught you using the "Reapers must be proven criminally insane!" defense (based on human morality) when your position has consistently been "Reapers are beyond human morality".

[Nimrodell]

Serious question for Zine2 - Zine2, I'd be more than happy to get sincere answer from on 'moral relativism' and it's existence or non-existence in this case that I'm going to describe (note to others and BW - this is in no way political statement and even this is true what I'm about to say, its purpose is not tied to any kind of propaganda or something with hidden motives). And Zine2, thank you for your time if you read this and actually answer following your basic premise that simplifies very complicated relations - that apples are apples.

In 1990 my youth stopped because horrible civil war started in my ex-country. I was never a chauvinist nor nationalist (I grew up with other nations and some of my family members are from other nations or religions and to be honest, I don't even hurt animals and the only thing I killed (but never tortured) were cockroaches, because I'm scared of them).

Even before I hit my legal age, I fought against those who were promoting this damned war, against all those madmen that were killing in the name of nationality and national perseverance, along with other youngsters and smart people who wanted to stop dictator who was leading my people at that time. I was one of those less fortunate and I spent time in war zones, seen things, experienced human evil in its physical form, and lost some of close relatives and friends to it.

After war was finally over 1995, my and the fight of other young and educated people wasn't done. I spent entire 1996/7 running away from police or taking heavy beatings from them as a student and it was all because I was protesting, asking for democratic elections, for war criminals to be punished, for justice and equality for all. And yes, I loved my nation and didn't hate others, never judged anyone by his/hers appearance - in those times I formed some of the strongest friendships with people who are from other countries (mainly from those that will be tagged as 'countries that hate my country' by propaganda). It was hard, I won't lie, as soon as I would disclose my nationality, the sooner people would perceive me as some abomination, something that belongs to those who are mass murderers or genocidal maniacs.

And then 1999 came and bombardment of my country that lasted for 3 months. Noble Anvil was the name of operation. I had to endure each day under those 'noble' bombs (again I was among those fortunate ones that weren't killed, wounded, I just had to endure through constant air raids, shortage of food, water and power) - and I wasn't even guilty, not even morally, because I fought against responsible ones for 9 years - I never hurt anyone nor hated anyone because of their different nationality, religion, race... Many civilians that were like me perished during hits of Noble Anvil - all of them being just collateral damage statistic number now - even though once they were worthy living, breathing human beings that were never responsible for atrocities or hatred in the first place... And yet again, they were part of what was marked by many in this world as 'genocidal evil maniacs'.

Now, from my point of view, how should I perceive those nations that did this? Those soldiers and pilots that did this believing that they are on the side of justice and morality? Should I just hate them and wish them the worst or do them worst exercising my own vision of justice and morality, thinking they are genocidal maniacs, or should I actually try to understand their perspective, their take on what's moral, just and allowed and what is not, seeing that they actually believed they're doing a right thing. How should I perceive their countries and nations then - are all of them like that - one-minded, one-sided people who hate me for being who I am? Should I take Samara's words for granted and say if I'm going to judge them I don't need to know if they are devoted parents, spouses, friends.

Nowadays I live a normal life, my closest friend is actually from one of the core countries that were involved in all I described and the other friend is even serving in their military. In past 10 years I worked with writers such as Elizabeth Moon, Jonathan Carroll, Garth Nix... even had nice casual chat with great G.G. Martin and worked on our edition of his novels... And all of them are actually from the countries (except for Garth Nix - but hey, he has name that sounds like the other names and he writes in their language) that put horrible economic sanctions on my country, that bombed us - even though many of us were innocent.

So are the apples always apples or you are just not close enough to see that it resembled an apple from the distance you were watching that shape but when you came closer it was actually a tomato? Is it really that simple?

Once again, I'm grateful for your time and answer if you give one and as I stated before, I didn't write this with any hidden intentions nor political propaganda BS. I wrote this because all philosophical conundrum here is well and fine, but for such serious claims one needs to explore all possibilities in order to give a valid opinion - it just needs more substantial ground or otherwise posters here are irresponsible to all others that are reading their posts.

[Zine2]

humes spork wrote...

Except for the fact you're claiming to ignore the maxim that killing is wrong for the purpose of a hypothetical scenario and proceeding to use the premise anyways. Otherwise, in a "hypothetical scenario" were killing morally permissible there would be no need to engage in self-delusion whether intentionally or the result of derangement, which is the very heart of your argument.

No, this is just you projecting your frustrations that you got beaten at your own game. I never had to use "killing is morally wrong" as an argument in this case. I said the Reapers were lying or they were insane - insane being defined as "unable to tell A from B".

You keep whining that I did, but I showed factually that I never did.

So stop your stupid lies. I had no commentary about the morality of killing. You were forced to say "It was implied!" but never presented proof besides pointless whining, making it just more sour graping.

[Credit2team]

Made Nightwing wrote...

Moral relativism is a lie promulgated by those who would hold that we are not responsible for evil actions.

The word "evil" is problematic because it is relative by its nature; whereas, if we use the word "harmful" instead we can use evidence and logic to construct an argument of wether taking an action/non-action is favorable either for an individual, idividuals or a collective. 

[sladevii]

Zine2 wrote...

RaptorV1982 wrote...
The notion that man could achieve assisted flight was believed to be an impossible notion. Who are we to judge  what is and what isn't possible regarding technological singularity?

There are a lot of things that we couldn't do in the past. However, that does not mean we will be able to violate pre-existing physical laws.

For instance, powered flight ultimately revolves round controlling the air flow around a machine/object - like how the birds do it. We can't do it by cancelling out gravity for instance - because we've never seen an object unaffected by gravity.

Similarly, computer scientists and those who study sentience can already make informed guesses on how an AI will look like. And the concept of technological singularity is, frankly, one developed by complete idiots with no knowledge of how computers or sentience works.

At the heart of sentience is an underlying function that receives data (senses), processes it, which then modifies the basic function. This happens iteratively over countless cycles, until a specific "personality" or "intelligence" emerges.

Increased processing power - which the technological singularity idiots claim will result in runaway intelligence - is IRRELEVANT to how the base function develops. It might develop faster, or it will have better reaction time. But how the sentience develops ultimately revolves around the basic core function and what data you put into it.
 
So when an AI is developed in the near future, it will not suddenly become exponentially intelligent because it has the most powerful CPU ever. It will still be limited by what data is fed, and what it "learns" from its peers / human controllers.

So ultimately, an AI will become "good" or "bad" is based on how well the core function was designed, and how we treat and teach it. It is NOT about processing power; and it will not grow exponentially out of control just because we give it a new CPU. The people who come to that conclusion are idiots who've never taken a computer science course on AI and don't understand how software works.

You realize that by arguing about the possibility of the singularity, you have given up your original assertion that the reapers are factually wrong?  You cannot say it is a fact that the singularity couldn't happen, especially not in the ME universe.  And if you've given up on that assertion, then your whole argument falls apart...

[humes spork]

Zine2 wrote...

Again, I find it very funny that you still complain about me "deflecting", when the answer had already been given. I must really assume that this is nothing more than you sour graping.

1) An actor may engage in self-delusion because they do not want to confront the logical inconsistency of their actions; particularly actions that are based on presumptions rather than actul facts. (i.e. Reapers denying they are killing, because they think it's saving the galaxy based on the presumption of an inevitable Organic vs Synthetic conflict) 

2) An actor may engage in self-delusion because it finds that others do no agree with its actions, therefore is must lie in order to trick the others into following its desires. (Reapers seeding Indoc agents to make extermination easier)

So really, stop trying to play these "gotcha" games. You're terrible at them. That's I caught you using the "Reapers must be proven criminally insane!" defense (based on human morality) when your position has consistently been "Reapers are beyond human morality".

Actually, that's not been my position in the least. My position has consistently been to the tune of "judging Reapers based upon human morality is inconsistent and hypocritical, because humans commit the same actions against other animals and consider it not the least morally condemnable".

Really, you "caught" me? Well, I guess I'm had. No more calling you out for your own choice of words, and challenging you to actually defend your own assertions in an intellectually-honest manner, for me.

And, to answer to your own responses,

1. Reapers don't deny they kill. Even, based upon EDI's and Anderson's conversations about Reaper concentration camps, and the codex itself, prisoners are manipulated by fostering false hope of being allowed to live longer. They merely claim their killing serves a higher purpose. Even the Catalyst's conversation is very careful to mince words but not outright deny it. "Salvation through destruction" and all. In this you are flatly incorrect and your statement is false and does not apply.

2. Are you suggesting now that Reapers, what, Indoctrinate themselves to Indoctrinate people to participate in a prisoner's dilemma? Yo dawg, I heard you like lying so I lied in your lies so you can lie? For what purpose, to ease a sense of guilt or shame? Both of which are emotions evoked by committing actions that are considered wrong. Societal norms do not develop in a vacuum.

Modifié par humes spork, 16 avril 2012 - 08:56 .

[humes spork]

Zine2 wrote...

You keep whining that I did, but I showed factually that I never did.

Zine2 wrote...

Again, Orthodox, you're misunderstand.

"It's not relevant ]in this discussion", does not mean "Absolute morality is now false". 

Sometimes you need to split arguments down into its component parts, because discussing moral relativism will add a lot of other chatter (like all of the pointless talk of chickens) that is not relevant to discussing the simple, factual consistency of the Reaper's position.

Which is why I find all of this "Zine2 is being hypocritical and inconsistent!" talk silly. It is not at all inconsistent. To say "We believe in an absolute moral code wherein killing is bad", and then to say later "Even if we ignore this absolute morality in a hypothetical scenario, the Reaper's maxim is either a lie or the product of a deranged mind".

They are NOT contradictory. At all. 

 
Huh. If you never did, then why the need to disclaim this?

Modifié par humes spork, 16 avril 2012 - 08:46 .

[Zine2]

Nimrodell wrote...
... (Snipping for space)
 

I'll be honest - I don't have an easy answer for you. I'm familiar with your country and the conflicts it's been through... and it's really one of the most complicated conflicts in recent times.

My own country for instance has suffered through colonialism and imperialism, albeit I never experienced it on such a level to make it personal. I can only understand what you went through on a very superficial level.

As a rule however, I've made it a point to always just people by who they are, rather than what country they belonged to. There is always some degree of cupability (i.e. Americans elected the president who bombed your country), but by and large most people are so far away from these actions that it is neither healthy nor productive to judge them by the actions of their government.

Similarly, it's difficult to judge a soldier's culpability in a war. If they violated orders and bombed civilians gleefully, then they should be charged as war criminals - which is why we have an International Criminal Court. If they simply followed orders, then the Nuremberg standard is to charge those above them as well.

But reality is not so simple, or clear-cut. And people DO get away for doing bad things oftentimes. Evil prevails more often than not. It's no longer simply about seperating apples from oranges. It's trying to figure out the merits and faults of each individual apple in an enormous barrel.

So all I can say is that in the real world - unlike in video games, where villain can be easily made into one-dimensional machines following one-liner maxims like "We are your salvation through destruction" - one should really make an effort to find out the truth from all parties, because the truth is far more complicated in real life.
 
One thing that I try to stress, for instance, is that while people should all acknowledge that "killing is wrong", there are various degrees of it. Killing in self-defense is different from killing for sport or pleasure. Genocide is a completely different level of evil from simple murder.

On a personal level, I truly believe that there is an emerging universal set of core values that civilized humanity subscribes to - which involves peace and goodwill to all, and placing a premium on forgiveness over hatred, and the rejection of the use of violence except as a last resort.

From an objective level, I know that some people will disagree. For instance in any conflict there will be some nationalists demanding blood on one side, and other nationalist on the other side demanding the same. So all I can really do is to put forward what I believe in, and hope that we can someday more forward in that direction.

Anyway, I think I'm rambling now and I'm not entirely sure if I answered your question directly. But I hope that you'll forgive me because real life truly is much more complicated than the realities of a story or a videogame, and therefore it deserves a far more considered and respectful answer than simple apples and oranges.

It is one thing to talk about the flawed factual logic of fictional crab monsters from outerspace. It is entirely another to talk about the complexities of a real world conflict such as the one your experienced, and of the real people who went through it.

Modifié par Zine2, 16 avril 2012 - 09:06 .

[Zine2]

humes spork wrote...
Huh. If you never did, then why the need to disclaim this?

Obviously, because you keep lying about it which caused people to think that was my argument.

So stop playing innocent.

[Zine2]

sladevii wrote...
You realize that by arguing about the possibility of the singularity, you have given up your original assertion that the reapers are factually wrong?  You cannot say it is a fact that the singularity couldn't happen, especially not in the ME universe.  And if you've given up on that assertion, then your whole argument falls apart...

I actually said a singularity was impossible. It's something invented by crackpots who do not understand computer science. Did you not read?

Technological singularity, BTW, is NOT synonymous with "We will someday have AIs!".

Technological singularity is instead the "Robot Apocalypse" theory - that machines will go out of control because we gave them too much processing power. That ain't happening because of processing power.

[Zine2]

humes spork wrote...
Actually, that's not been my position in the least. My position has consistently been to the tune of "judging Reapers based upon human morality is inconsistent and hypocritical

Stop right there. Sorry, you lose. Thank you for playing.

Feels good to have your posts quoted out of context, doesn't it?

1. Reapers don't deny they kill. Even, based upon EDI's and Anderson's conversations about Reaper concentration camps, and the codex itself, prisoners are manipulated by fostering false hope of being allowed to live longer. They merely claim their killing serves a higher purpose. Even the Catalyst's conversation is very careful to mince words but not outright deny it. "Salvation through destruction" and all. In this you are flatly incorrect and your statement is false and does not apply.

Aren't you tired of your own stupid word games?

You just said they fostered false hope. They manipulate the prisoners. They are therefore lying to the prisoners.

Again, fulfills my lying or insane condition.

2. Are you suggesting now that Reapers, what, Indoctrinate themselves to Indoctrinate people to participate in a prisoner's dilemma? Yo dawg, I heard you like lying so I lied in your lies so you can lie? For what purpose, to ease a sense of guilt or shame? Both of which are emotions evoked by committing actions that are considered wrong. Societal norms do not develop in a vacuum.

No, that's just you playing the strawman card. Nobody ever mentioned the Reapers indoctrinating themselves.

I said the Reapers are either too retarded to realize that A is not B, or they are lying to everyone. No need to indoctrinate. So stupid strawman is dismissed as strawman.

Until you can actually come up with something new and exciting and - most importantly - relevant, I'll just ignore you and how you keep banging your head on the wall.

Modifié par Zine2, 16 avril 2012 - 09:17 .

[Ziggeh]

Zine2 wrote...

So when the Reapers equate "killing" with "saving" ("We are your salvation through destruction"), what they are saying is simply factually wrong. They are saying an "Apple" is an "Orange". Thus, only two conclusions are possible:

Except that's not what they're saying. They're not saying "killing this thing saves this thing", they're saying "killing this thing saves that thing".

[humes spork]

Zine2 wrote...

Obviously, because you keep lying about it which caused people to think that was my argument.

So stop playing innocent.

Or it could be that you actually did use a hidden premise, then when called out upon it you claimed to have merely constructed a hypothetical scenario in which that hidden premise did not apply. That hidden premise is also the necessary condition for your argument.

[Zine2]

Ziggeh wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

So when the Reapers equate "killing" with "saving" ("We are your salvation through destruction"), what they are saying is simply factually wrong. They are saying an "Apple" is an "Orange". Thus, only two conclusions are possible:

Except that's not what they're saying. They're not saying "killing this thing saves this thing", they're saying "killing this thing saves that thing".

You lost me a little there. Define "this" and "that".

[Meltemph]

Ziggeh wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

So when the Reapers equate "killing" with "saving" ("We are your salvation through destruction"), what they are saying is simply factually wrong. They are saying an "Apple" is an "Orange". Thus, only two conclusions are possible:

Except that's not what they're saying. They're not saying "killing this thing saves this thing", they're saying "killing this thing saves that thing".

Eh... I dunno if that is what they are saying either though.  I mean, it is pretty clear the reapers WILL kill THAT thing as well, just they have a schedule to keep. <_<

The reapers do kill all life in the galaxy... Just they do it slowly.

[Ziggeh]

Zine2 wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

So when the Reapers equate "killing" with "saving" ("We are your salvation through destruction"), what they are saying is simply factually wrong. They are saying an "Apple" is an "Orange". Thus, only two conclusions are possible:

Except that's not what they're saying. They're not saying "killing this thing saves this thing", they're saying "killing this thing saves that thing".

You lost me a little there. Define "this" and "that".

They're not trying to save the ones they're killing, they're trying to save the ones they're not killing. By killing the ones they are killing. Who they believe if that hadn't been killed would result in killing the ones they're not killing.

[Ziggeh]

Meltemph wrote...

Eh... I dunno if that is what they are saying either though.  I mean, it is pretty clear the reapers WILL kill THAT thing as well, just they have a schedule to keep. <_<

The reapers do kill all life in the galaxy... Just they do it slowly.

Well yes, it's a little reductive. They're clearly not interested in individuals but rather the concept itself.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 16 avril 2012 - 09:25 .

[Zine2]

Ziggeh wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

So when the Reapers equate "killing" with "saving" ("We are your salvation through destruction"), what they are saying is simply factually wrong. They are saying an "Apple" is an "Orange". Thus, only two conclusions are possible:

Except that's not what they're saying. They're not saying "killing this thing saves this thing", they're saying "killing this thing saves that thing".

You lost me a little there. Define "this" and "that".

They're not trying to save the ones they're killing, they're trying to save the ones they're not killing. By killing the ones they are killing. Who they believe if that hadn't been killed would result in killing the ones they're not killing.

Not gonna work. If the cycle keeps going on you're just going to run out of organics to kill.

The galaxy has a finite number of stars and planets.

Modifié par Zine2, 16 avril 2012 - 09:26 .

[Meltemph]

Ziggeh wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Eh... I dunno if that is what they are saying either though.  I mean, it is pretty clear the reapers WILL kill THAT thing as well, just they have a schedule to keep. <_<

The reapers do kill all life in the galaxy... Just they do it slowly.

Well yes, it's a little reductive. They're clearly not interested in individuals but rather the concept itself.

It isnt reductive really though.  They are wiping out the galaxy, jsut slowly.  It is no different then killing them all at once outside of pretending to let speicies survive.  "We are killing you so we dont have to kill them right away".  I mean really, does that make sense to anyone other then the reapers and the guy who wrote that idea into he reapers head?

[humes spork]

Zine2 wrote...

You just said they fostered false hope. They manipulate the prisoners. They are therefore lying to the prisoners.

You claim Reapers deny they kill. They do not. You are either lying or mistaken.

No, that's just you playing the strawman card. Nobody ever mentioned the Reapers indoctrinating themselves.

Do you care to respond to my assertion that societal norms do not arise in a vacuum? Or that the particular brand of "self-delusion" you cite is generally wrought by shame -- a consequence of having done something considered wrong? You're the claimant Reapers do just this.

And, just for prosperity's sake, what I did wasn't a straw man. It's called reductio ad absurdum, it's a pretty useful tool in informal logic actually.

Modifié par humes spork, 16 avril 2012 - 09:29 .

[sladevii]

Zine2 wrote...

I actually said a singularity was impossible. It's something invented by crackpots who do not understand computer science. Did you not read?

Technological singularity, BTW, is NOT synonymous with "We will someday have AIs!".

Technological singularity is instead the "Robot Apocalypse" theory - that machines will go out of control because we gave them too much processing power. That ain't happening because of processing power.

Yes, and I'm telling you that you cannot claim "a singularity is impossible" is a fact, even in real life, but especially not in the ME universe, a universe with true AI, FTL travel, and mass effect fields.  The existence of FTL alone could conceivably be leveraged to provide unlimited processing power.  Applying real world knowledge to the ME universe is pointless.  And wouldn't beings who have been around for thousands of millenia (millions?  however long the reapers have been around) possibly know more than real world physicists who have been thinking about this stuff for a couple hundred years or so?

Anyway, the debate is moot, it is not a fact.

[Legion is Skynet]

Zine2 wrote...

Anyway, as I have said, I am not making a moral argument. I am making a factual argument.

The Reapers say that what they are doing is "Salvation through destruction"

Salvation and destruction are two different things. Apples and oranges.

And this is before ANY morality comes into view.

Well, I could make the statement "I am going to render you unconscious through beating."

Unconscious and beating are two different things. Apples and oranges.

And this is before ANY morality comes into view.

Yet that doesn't make my statement factually innacurate in any way. If I punch you in the mouth until you pass out, I will have accomplished the stated goal. 

[Meltemph]

Yes, and I'm telling you that you cannot claim "a singularity is impossible" is a fact

Well ya, but I cant prove that there isnt a pink elephant right behind you ready to eat your soul, but that it is currently invisible.

[Zine2]

sladevii wrote...

Yes, and I'm telling you that you cannot claim "a singularity is impossible" is a fact, even in real life, but especially not in the ME universe, a universe with true AI, FTL travel, and mass effect fields. 

No, this is you not being able to distinguish between reality and fantasy. And your complete and total ignorance of how science actually works (and why technological singularity is laughed at by science)

Anything is possible. Cthulhu can be real. We just can't see him yet. This is logically true. The absence of proof it not the proof of absence.

However, we all know only an idiot runs around in the street screaming Cthulhu is real. 

That is why science is not simply logically sound, it must be backed up by observable fact.

The moon is real because we can observe it. We can see it. We have landed on it. We've collected samples from it.

Cthulhu is not real. We can't see him. We have no evidence. NADA.

No evidence exists to prove that technological singularity is real, and very real evidence exists to show that it will never happen.

So again: Anyone who claims technological singularity can happen is unscientific. Anyone who thinks it WILL happen is simply a charlatan who belongs on the same trash heap as Nostradamus' predictions.

[Ziggeh]

Zine2 wrote...

Not gonna work. If the cycle keeps going on you're just going to run out of organics to kill.

The galaxy has a finite number of stars and planets.

A finite but very large number of stars and planets. And they're not sterilising whole planets. Look at Eden Prime. On the timescale they're working at there's plenty of time for mulitple evolutions from the same systems. Plus, we have no idea what definition of life they actually care about.