270 réponses à ce sujet

[Zine2]

Legion is Skynet wrote...

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. 

That's true, but unconscious and beating have a proper cause-and-effect chain. By beating me up, you can render me unconscious.

Now try that logic with "I will render you unconscious by making you drink coffee"

Because again, saving and killing don't exactly have the same cause-and-effect chain. "I am gonna render you saved by killing you". It is very apparent that "saved" either has a different meaning (hence they are lying), or it's really that insane.

Modifié par Zine2, 16 avril 2012 - 09:38 .

[Zine2]

Ziggeh wrote...

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.

Yeah, but they also simply nuke others. Or burn them to the ground. Killing really slowly ain't gonna change the basic fact they'll run out eventually.

[Ziggeh]

Meltemph wrote...
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?

As I say, that assumes a finite number of things to kill. Which I hesistate to say "isn't the case" (because there is a rather horrible flaw in his argument that's possibly explained by a theory that implies finite number of things to kill), but is shall we say, unlikely.

[Meltemph]

Ziggeh wrote...

Meltemph wrote...
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?

As I say, that assumes a finite number of things to kill. Which I hesistate to say "isn't the case" (because there is a rather horrible flaw in his argument that's possibly explained by a theory that implies finite number of things to kill), but is shall we say, unlikely.

Well ya, but then they are just killing the galaxy for all eternity... I mean honestly the only real way to stop this from happening is the galaxy colapsing on itself pre space magic.

[Zine2]

Ziggeh wrote...

Meltemph wrote...
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?

As I say, that assumes a finite number of things to kill. Which I hesistate to say "isn't the case" (because there is a rather horrible flaw in his argument that's possibly explained by a theory that implies finite number of things to kill), but is shall we say, unlikely.

Current science says no to "isn't the case".

[Ziggeh]

Zine2 wrote...

Yeah, but they also simply nuke others. Or burn them to the ground. Killing really slowly ain't gonna change the basic fact they'll run out eventually.

Why would they run out? The galaxy is apparently teeming with life, even after countless cycles. Life is a process, not a fixed quantity.

[Ziggeh]

Zine2 wrote...
Current science says no to "isn't the case".

Not following, current science says that life is finite in the ME universe?

[Ziggeh]

Meltemph wrote...

Well ya, but then they are just killing the galaxy for all eternity...

Yup, and that's exactly what they intend. The cycle must continue.

[Eire Icon]

Zine2 wrote...

So when the Reapers equate "killing" with "saving" ("We are your salvation through destruction"),

.

When the Reapers say "Your salvation" they are referring to Organic life, not humanity, not the organic life in the current cycle but all oragnic life

The Reapers logic is that organic life left unchecked will destroy themselves once they have evolved sufficiently (Through the invention of syntethics). Their solution is to only allow organic life to evolve to a certain level, and then culling them.

Thus by wiping out advanced Organic life, they preserve the remaining organic life in the Galaxy

How do you like those apples ?

[Meltemph]

Ziggeh wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Well ya, but then they are just killing the galaxy for all eternity...

Yup, and that's exactly what they intend. The cycle must continue.

Well ya, but they are not maintaining anything, outside of killing everything...Which when you think about it is quite funny considering their premise. <_<

[Zine2]

Ziggeh wrote...

Zine2 wrote...
Current science says no to "isn't the case".

Not following, current science says that life is finite in the ME universe?

By current science I mean real-world science. Unless the ME universe if funky and new planets are created all the time, there are simply a finite number of planets and a finite number of them that can support life.

Blast through all of them and life will simply never occur again. Not nuking every world will lengthen the "lifespan" of some planets and maybe even let them support life again after a cycle, but as seen with Palaven the damage can be pretty extensive and worlds will inevitably be lost - even "accidentally" - and thus it will eventually run out.

The Galaxy simply isn't infinite.

[sladevii]

Zine2 wrote...

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.

Actually you are the one confusing reality and fantasy -- we are talking about fantasy here in case you'd forgotten.  Did you miss this point? "...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.".  Are you conveniently ignoring the fact that no evidence exists to prove that FTL travel is possible and strong theories exist to show it should be impossible?  Funny how the "technological singularity is laughed at by science", but FTL is no problem?  And what about mass effect fields? How on earth do you explain those?  Combine true AI and FTL and you effectively get infinite time and infinite resources -- it seems like a bit of a stretch to assume that effectively infinite time and infinite resources could not possibly result in infinite processing power.

[Zine2]

Eire Icon wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

So when the Reapers equate "killing" with "saving" ("We are your salvation through destruction"),

.

When the Reapers say "Your salvation" they are referring to Organic life, not humanity, not the organic life in the current cycle but all oragnic life

The Reapers logic is that organic life left unchecked will destroy themselves once they have evolved sufficiently (Through the invention of syntethics). Their solution is to only allow organic life to evolve to a certain level, and then culling them.

Thus by wiping out advanced Organic life, they preserve the remaining organic life in the Galaxy

How do you like those apples ?

I'd call them oranges.

The thing that hasn't been pointed out is that if they wanted to prevent organics from destroying themselves, they can do it by simply not allowing the Organics from progressing beyond a certain level of tech.

But the Reapers in fact even providing civilizations with the tech to destroy themselves with. So again... this theory sounds great in practice, but still falls very much under "The Reapers were lying" (they have a different ulterior motive from their stated goal) or "The Reapers were insane" umbrella (They prove organics with the technology that they're supposedly trying to prevent from being developed. Again, that's an insane person pretending apples are oranges).

[Zine2]

sladevii wrote...

Actually you are the one confusing reality and fantasy -- we are talking about fantasy here in case you'd forgotten.

Oh, in that case I'll simply point out that technological singularity was NEVER actually mentioned even once in the game. So your argument is non-existent.

Thank you for playing

Now, if you want a further run-down on how technological singularity in real life is not a theory and was invented by complete morons, just tell me, and I'll be happy to oblige

[Ziggeh]

Zine2 wrote...

By current science I mean real-world science. Unless the ME universe if funky and new planets are created all the time, there are simply a finite number of planets and a finite number of them that can support life.

Blast through all of them and life will simply never occur again. Not nuking every world will lengthen the "lifespan" of some planets and maybe even let them support life again after a cycle, but as seen with Palaven the damage can be pretty extensive and worlds will inevitably be lost - even "accidentally" - and thus it will eventually run out.

The Galaxy simply isn't infinite.

Oh, I see, you meant maths.

Well, yes, the galaxy isn't infinite. But then you also have to consider that the galaxy isn't infinite. (I think we hit Andromeda in a few billion years, I'm buying canned good already). Which means they don't have to go on for ever.

Plus as the preservation of some life is their stated objective I think you have to assume they'd be a little more active if it became clear that they were going to do the thing they'd spent billions of years attempting to avoid. They could seed worlds, for example.

[Eire Icon]

Zine2 wrote...

I'd call them oranges.

The thing that hasn't been pointed out is that if they wanted to prevent organics from destroying themselves, they can do it by simply not allowing the Organics from progressing beyond a certain level of tech.
.

They want to prevent organics from destroying each other, theres a difference. How exactly would they stop Organics from progressing to a certain level of tech?

Zine2 wrote...

But the Reapers in fact even providing civilizations with the tech to destroy themselves with. So again... this theory sounds great in practice, but still falls very much under "The Reapers were lying" (they have a different ulterior motive from their stated goal) or "The Reapers were insane" umbrella (They prove organics with the technology that they're supposedly trying to prevent from being developed. Again, that's an insane person pretending apples are oranges).

By allowing Organics to use their own tech they develop along the timelines that the Reapers want them too

The Mass Relays and Reaper Tech are not "Magic", its technology. There is nothing to suggest that it could not be developed independent of the Reapers

By the Reapers leaving Technology such as the Citadel it ensures that organics can use the tech without fully understanding it, giving the reapers a huge advantage once the cycle ends.

Modifié par Eire Icon, 16 avril 2012 - 10:00 .

[humes spork]

Zine2 wrote...

So again: Anyone who claims technological singularity can happen is unscientific.

I strongly suggest you read the work of Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction would be a good place to start.

[Zine2]

Ziggeh wrote...
Well, yes, the galaxy isn't infinite. But then you also have to consider that the galaxy isn't infinite. (I think we hit Andromeda in a few billion years, I'm buying canned good already). Which means they don't have to go on for ever.

Plus as the preservation of some life is their stated objective I think you have to assume they'd be a little more active if it became clear that they were going to do the thing they'd spent billions of years attempting to avoid. They could seed worlds, for example.

Well, we might hit Andromeda, but it's also a fact that galaxies are all generally moving away from each other so we probably won't see a huge planetary windfall.

Also, while seeding worlds is logical, the question is this: Why don't they just do that now? Why don't they keep everyone on caveman level? Why are they even bothering to put up Mass Relays to find so that races can develop advanced tech?

"Keep organics from developing advanced tech!" is again looking like very dumb an argument when they are the ones who provide a lot of the tech in the first place...

Modifié par Zine2, 16 avril 2012 - 10:01 .

[rachellouise]

Those are really two different things.

A rose is a rose because that's what it is. (ignoring the fact that if you don't know it's name it's not to you etc.)

However,
some people may see a rose as a beautiful addition to their garden,
others may see it as no more than a weed

[StElmo]

Zine2 wrote...

Standard Zine2 thread. Harsh, but you'll learn something.

Defenders of the ending often use this argument.

You cannot judge the Reaper's actions, because they are operating from a different perspective. We are but ants to them. Hence, you should put aside any revulsion at being forced to work for a mass-murderer like the Catalyst and happily take part in his next "Solution".

This is what is called "moral relativism". Murder might be immoral in our society, but it's perfectly acceptable for the Reapers, because their "perspective" is different. So we should "understand" that the Reapers are operating from a different "perspective" and follow them like obedient sheep.

The problem is this: The Reapers aren't just operating on a different set of morals. They are so factually retarded that they can be considered clinically insane; or they are lying. Either way, they are not worthy of support or sympathy.

Facts are facts. An apple is an apple. It is NOT an orange. That is a fact, no matter your perspective. The truth depends on physical realities, not on imaginary relationships you constructed in your imagination.

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:

1) They are lying - they know it's an apple but insist on calling it an orange.

2) They are clinically insane - they literally cannot tell the difference between an apple and an orange because their cognitive skills are worse than a five year old. It doesn't matter if you have infinite processing power or ten thousand years worth of data. If you cannot tell an apple from an orange, you are suffering from a proveable mental disorder, and therefore your opinions has as much merit as a madman in a padded cell, or a senile old man. Being older does not automatically make you wiser or deeper.

There is no other room for other "interpretations". This is the harsh reality of the ending. You can close your eyes, cover your ears, and go LALALALA, but that's the truth of it. The Reapers are lying or clinically insane.

So when they say they are "beyond our understanding", we shouldn't look at them with awe or wonder. They just can't admit that they're so monumentally stupid or dishonest that their arguments have absolutely no merit.

Factual analysis always trumps moral relativism. Reality always trumps the voices in your head. Until people who like the ending open their eyes and stop covering their ears and realize how wrong the Reaper's argument is - on a factual level; not just a "moral" one - then they're never going to understand why 92% of the people polled hated the ending.

Agreed moral relativism is a very poor moral philosophy.

[StElmo]

rachellouise wrote...

Those are really two different things.

A rose is a rose because that's what it is. (ignoring the fact that if you don't know it's name it's not to you etc.)

However,
some people may see a rose as a beautiful addition to their garden,
others may see it as no more than a weed

Morality is not a matter of perspective, it is a matter of premise and applying that premise to a logical thought process.

[rachellouise]

you can't decide if someone's morals are right or wrong, based on the fact they are not the same as your own.

You can say someone is wrong if they refer to an apple as anything other than an apple.
You can't say someone is wrong for not wanting to eat that apple, because it provides food for the animals in their garden.

Modifié par rachellouise, 16 avril 2012 - 10:10 .

[Ziggeh]

Zine2 wrote...
Also, while seeding worlds is logical, the question is this: Why don't they just do that now? Why don't they keep everyone on caveman level? Why are they even bothering to put up Mass Relays to find so that races can develop advanced tech?

"Keep organics from developing advanced tech!" is again looking like very dumb an argument when they are the ones who provide a lot of the tech in the first place...

Well....yes, there are other, less risky ways of going about the stated objective. Can't think of any that are quite so energy efficient, so maybe they're conservationists. I don't know. But I'm not sure this is all that important to your original point. Unless we've moved on.

[sladevii]

Zine2 wrote...

Oh, in that case I'll simply point out that technological singularity was NEVER actually mentioned even once in the game. So your argument is non-existent.

Thank you for playing

Now, if you want a further run-down on how technological singularity in real life is not a theory and was invented by complete morons, just tell me, and I'll be happy to oblige

lol at the ego on this guy...

"The created will always rebel against their creators"
"Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics"

Modifié par sladevii, 16 avril 2012 - 10:11 .

[Zine2]

humes spork wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

So again: Anyone who claims technological singularity can happen is unscientific.

I strongly suggest you read the work of Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction would be a good place to start.

LOL. If you actually understood what Popper said, he's not saying "Cthlhu is real!" is a valid theory. He's saying that to advance knowledge you have to propose new and untested things. You then use analysis and criticism to see if these new propositions have any actual merit.

It's not an excuse for stupid and blatantly disprovable notions like "technological singularity". Again, computer science has already murdered that "theory" in its sleep. Processing power will not cause runaway intelligence. It simply does not work that way.

Go to a university, finish a computer science course - with credits on A.I., then get back to me and tell me whether or not technological singularity is possible.

Modifié par Zine2, 16 avril 2012 - 10:20 .