sladevii wrote...
"The created will always rebel against their creators"
"Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics"
Ziggeh wrote...
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.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...
Zine2 wrote...
"You are just lying to my face".
The Protheans never had this "creator rebelling against the created" problem. The Zha Til was NOT created by the Protheans.
Fundamental assumption of the Reapers disproven. Thank you for playing.
No -- but neither was I asserting that. Merely that you'd do well to read (or reread) it before speaking in absolutes when it comes to science and the scientific method as you have been in this thread as if you are a bearer of objective truth.Zine2 wrote...
LOL. If you actually understood what Popper said, he's not saying "Cthlhu is real!" is a valid theory. It's not an excuse for stupid and blatantly disprovable notions like "technological singularity".
Modifié par humes spork, 16 avril 2012 - 10:23 .
Zine2 wrote...
It's important because the way to disprove my position is to demonstrate a specific case wherein the Reaper's stated motives are actually fully truthful (no hiding ulterior motives), while having good logical sense that does not rely on saying "An apple is an orange".
By bringing up some of the most well-known possibities behind Reaper motivations, we can cross check on whether or not their actions remain consistent with their stated maxim.
Eire Icon wrote...
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.
sladevii wrote...
The protheans were wiped out by the reapers before it could happen -- this is why the reapers say they are doing it in the first place. Try again
Zine2 wrote...
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.
Zine2 wrote...
Ziggeh wrote...
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.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...
It's important because the way to disprove my position is to demonstrate a specific case wherein the Reaper's stated motives are actually fully truthful (no hiding ulterior motives), while having good logical sense that does not rely on saying "An apple is an orange".
By bringing up some of the most well-known possibities behind Reaper motivations, we can cross check on whether or not their actions remain consistent with their stated maxim.
I'm going to go on a limb here and assume you know Asimov's laws of robotics, and skip the exposition.Zine2 wrote...
Nope, read what you said:
"The created will always rebel against their creators"
Again, blatant lies are simply blatant lies. No, you do not get to squirm out of this.
Zine2 wrote...
sladevii wrote...
The protheans were wiped out by the reapers before it could happen -- this is why the reapers say they are doing it in the first place. Try again
Nope, read what you said:
"The created will always rebel against their creators"
Again, blatant lies are simply blatant lies. No, you do not get to squirm out of this.
humes spork wrote...
No -- but neither was I asserting that. Merely that you'd do well to read (or reread) it before speaking in absolutes when it comes to science and the scientific method as you have been in this thread as if you are a bearer of objective truth.Zine2 wrote...
LOL. If you actually understood what Popper said, he's not saying "Cthlhu is real!" is a valid theory. It's not an excuse for stupid and blatantly disprovable notions like "technological singularity".
look at the first commentZine2 wrote...
humes spork wrote...
No -- but neither was I asserting that. Merely that you'd do well to read (or reread) it before speaking in absolutes when it comes to science and the scientific method as you have been in this thread as if you are a bearer of objective truth.Zine2 wrote...
LOL. If you actually understood what Popper said, he's not saying "Cthlhu is real!" is a valid theory. It's not an excuse for stupid and blatantly disprovable notions like "technological singularity".
The method is irrelevant. I speak in absolutes because of what I know. Because I have done the schooling.
So again, go take a computer science course. Make sure to finish some credits on A.I.. In fact, better yet, do your disseration on A.I - if you do the last bit then at least you'll (finally) have some kind of leg up on me on this subject.
Then go back and tell me if processing power is gonna be worth a damn in making your A.I. any "smarter", and that processing power will make it so smart that it will go out of control.
Don't ask. Don't speculate. Go take the damn course and learn. So that you'll understand why real computer scientists laugh at technological singularity, even fervent believers in Moore's Law.
And the thing about not killing the thing to save the same thing doesn't do that? I appreciate we can look at it with greater complexity, but there are so many confounding variables to which we're not made privy that it's simply going to rely on speculation in either direction.Zine2 wrote...
It's important because the way to disprove my position is to demonstrate a specific case wherein the Reaper's stated motives are actually fully truthful (no hiding ulterior motives), while having good logical sense that does not rely on saying "An apple is an orange".
Ok, so you're saying doing something sub optimally proves the intention to be false? I'm not sure where that was headed.Zine2 wrote...
By bringing up some of the most well-known possibities behind Reaper motivations, we can cross check on whether or not their actions remain consistent with their stated maxim.
Legion is Skynet wrote...
Of course, this also presupposes that the Reapers don't have a different interpretation of the word Salvation. If they do, that fact alone does not immediately render them liars or insane.
Ziggeh wrote...
And the thing about not killing the thing to save the same thing doesn't do that? I appreciate we can look at it with greater complexity, but there are so many confounding variables to which we're not made privy that it's simply going to rely on speculation in either direction.Zine2 wrote...
It's important because the way to disprove my position is to demonstrate a specific case wherein the Reaper's stated motives are actually fully truthful (no hiding ulterior motives), while having good logical sense that does not rely on saying "An apple is an orange".
Ok, so you're saying doing something sub optimally proves the intention to be false? I'm not sure where that was headed.Zine2 wrote...
By bringing up some of the most well-known possibities behind Reaper motivations, we can cross check on whether or not their actions remain consistent with their stated maxim.
...and you probably wonder why I suggest you read Popper.Zine2 wrote...
I speak in absolutes because of what I know.
You're relying on a specific interpretation there.Zine2 wrote...
"The created will always rebel against their creators"
Again, blatant lies are simply blatant lies. No, you do not get to squirm out of this.
JPR1964 wrote...
@OP
You forgot this possibility : they're only advanced tools programmed to do and think that, and besides their programmation, they cannot do anything else...
(IMO, some discussions with Sovereign in ME1 can hint at this possibility, but, ok, that's just me...)
JPR out!
humes spork wrote...
...and you probably wonder why I suggest you read Popper.Zine2 wrote...
I speak in absolutes because of what I know.
rachellouise wrote...
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.
Yep, hence Asimov's third law. If you accept synthetic life has no right to defend itself against its own creators (which is what the third law specifically evokes), then synthetic life defending itself against its creators alone is an act of rebellion.Ziggeh wrote...
You're relying on a specific interpretation there.
Dude A is about to kill Dude B. If I kill Dude A, has Dude B been saved?Zine2 wrote...
Killing ain't saving. Unless it's a translator error. See above.
Doing something potentially (because we don't know a number of other variables) suboptimally makes you insane?Zine2 wrote...
No, it proves them to be incredibly stupid to the point of insanity, the other point.
humes spork wrote...
...and you probably wonder why I suggest you read Popper.Zine2 wrote...
I speak in absolutes because of what I know.
Zine2 wrote...
humes spork wrote...
No -- but neither was I asserting that. Merely that you'd do well to read (or reread) it before speaking in absolutes when it comes to science and the scientific method as you have been in this thread as if you are a bearer of objective truth.Zine2 wrote...
LOL. If you actually understood what Popper said, he's not saying "Cthlhu is real!" is a valid theory. It's not an excuse for stupid and blatantly disprovable notions like "technological singularity".
The method is irrelevant. I speak in absolutes because of what I know. Because I have done the schooling.
So again, go take a computer science course. Make sure to finish some credits on A.I.. In fact, better yet, do your disseration on A.I - if you do the last bit then at least you'll (finally) have some kind of leg up on me on this subject.
Then go back and tell me if processing power is gonna be worth a damn in making your A.I. any "smarter", and that processing power will make it so smart that it will go out of control.
Don't ask. Don't speculate. Go take the damn course and learn. So that you'll understand why real computer scientists laugh at technological singularity, even fervent believers in Moore's Law.
Retour en haut