561 réponses à ce sujet

[Anduin The Grey]

[quote]ArchDuck wrote...

Pick green if you don't care about the natural evolutionary process. Some however do and don’t touch it. Technically it does interfere with natural evolution. It is because the kid said a new DNA framework. We don’t know what that really is internally. All we see is green eye.[/quote]

[/quote]

You got a link to a video where the Catalyst mentions Apex of Evolution. Just woke up so forgive my lack of proper research but the video I just watched says is the final evolution of all life. I'd like to know how anyone here can explain how synthetic life and organic life can be combined let alone how it can't evolve?

Maybe it's just one of those differences made by EMS just like the whole "the crucible changed me but I can't/I won't make the change" thing.

[YNation913]

[quote]Anduin The Grey wrote...

[quote]ArchDuck wrote...

Pick green if you don't care about the natural evolutionary process. Some however do and don’t touch it. Technically it does interfere with natural evolution. It is because the kid said a new DNA framework. We don’t know what that really is internally. All we see is green eye.[/quote]

[/quote]

You got a link to a video where the Catalyst mentions Apex of Evolution. Just woke up so forgive my lack of proper research but the video I just watched says is the final evolution of all life. I'd like to know how anyone here can explain how synthetic life and organic life can be combined let alone how it can't evolve?

Maybe it's just one of those differences made by EMS just like the whole "the crucible changed me but I can't/I won't make the change" thing.

[/quote]

The final evolution of life is poor phrasing. I know people say evolution has no goal or endpoint, and that's true, but given certain constants it's still possible to sometimes predict the course evolution will take. I think in saying the "final evolution," the kid means that it's the singularity, the point past which evolution becomes impossible to predict.

As for combining synthetics and organics, nobody can describe the exact science of it, just as no one can describe the exact science of the mass effect because it likely is scientifically impossible. But the basic premise is that genes are neither added nor discarded, rather the building blocks of both synthetic (binary) and organic (DNA) life are replaced by something that:

a) is made of different material than DNA as we know it now.
is similar in functionality to DNA in that it's the "code" that directs the various functions of life forms.
c) the molecular components of it make life function with both "organic" and "synthetic" capabilities.
d) presumably assumes an arrangement at the individual level that allows the individual to retain original characteristics (debatable, but I'm optimistic).

Modifié par YNation913, 24 avril 2012 - 12:46 .

[paxbanana3915]

YNation913 wrote...

The final evolution of life is poor phrasing. I know people say evolution has no goal or endpoint, and that's true, but given certain constants it's still possible to sometimes predict the course evolution will take. I think in saying the "final evolution," the kid means that it's the singularity, the point past which evolution becomes impossible to predict.

As for combining synthetics and organics, nobody can describe the exact science of it, just as no one can describe the exact science of the mass effect because it likely is scientifically impossible. But the basic premise is that genes are neither added nor discarded, rather the building blocks of both synthetic and organic life are replaced by something that:

a) is made of different material than DNA as we know it now.
is similar in functionality to DNA in that it's the "code" that directs the various functions of life forms.
c) the molecular components of it make life function with both "organic" and "synthetic" capabilities.
d) presumably assumes an arrangement at the individual level that allows the individual to retain original characteristics (debatable, but I'm optimistic).

I don't even... I'm sorry, but that's a bunch of words thrown together that don't actually mean anything. What are you actually trying to say?

[ZIPO396]

I find Synthesis to be morally abhorrent forced on anyone. Sure as an individuals choice I'm fine with it but as a forced onto individuals or species now so much. That and it goes against everything Shepard seems to be about even as a renegade jerk Shep. It also doesn't solve the problem the species of the galaxy could still make superior synthetic life that could go on to destroy them anyway.

[YNation913]

paxbanana3915 wrote...

YNation913 wrote...

The final evolution of life is poor phrasing. I know people say evolution has no goal or endpoint, and that's true, but given certain constants it's still possible to sometimes predict the course evolution will take. I think in saying the "final evolution," the kid means that it's the singularity, the point past which evolution becomes impossible to predict.

As for combining synthetics and organics, nobody can describe the exact science of it, just as no one can describe the exact science of the mass effect because it likely is scientifically impossible. But the basic premise is that genes are neither added nor discarded, rather the building blocks of both synthetic and organic life are replaced by something that:

a) is made of different material than DNA as we know it now.
is similar in functionality to DNA in that it's the "code" that directs the various functions of life forms.
c) the molecular components of it make life function with both "organic" and "synthetic" capabilities.
d) presumably assumes an arrangement at the individual level that allows the individual to retain original characteristics (debatable, but I'm optimistic).

I don't even... I'm sorry, but that's a bunch of words thrown together that don't actually mean anything. What are you actually trying to say?

I'm trying to say that rather than being a manipulation of genes at an individual level, synthesis redefines DNA by creating building blocks of a different composition all together. How this new DNA goes about replacing the old DNA of organics and the old binary code of synthetics is impossible to say, though. 

Modifié par YNation913, 24 avril 2012 - 01:02 .

[Skull Bearer]

jstme wrote...

Synthesis that we are shown in ME3 is insanely disgusting. It affects every living creature in the galaxy. Nature is being murdered.
As for the general concept of transhumanity - i find it stupid but sadly inevitable. Not disgusting. It is a path to complete artificial creatures though - not synthesis. And it will not influence life in general. It will be just death of ****** Sapiens.
If you will give it a real thought beyond superficial "we will jump higher run faster be ,like, super smart and have no illnesses and will not die" - eventually there will be no reason to keep any biological part, all will be replaced by more efficient and more durable technology. There will be no reason to replace certain organs - stomach, heart, guts ,kidneys and ctr are not needed in a artificial body. There will be no reason for kids since the instinct will be gone with the organic brain and in any case one will be immortal and can upgrade/change everything ,in some kind of "egocentric evolution".
There will be no reason to keep the same shape nor size.
Face it - result of trans-human approach will be super-intelligent "superman" AI with no resemblence to us whatsorever - not physical nor moral nor intellectual. And Humanity will be dead.

See as a transhumanist I don't have a problem with this. As long as the people involved consented.

[paxbanana3915]

YNation913 wrote...

I'm trying to say that rather than being a manipulation of genes at an individual level, synthesis redefines DNA by creating building blocks of a different composition all together. How this new DNA goes about replacing the old DNA is impossible to say, though. 

Okay, I see that point. I've wondered about how this all would work ultimately.

I have trouble understanding how changing DNA to something-like-DNA will do anything different than DNA considering how it works cellularly. Does something-like-DNA code ultimately for something-like-protein? How does that change creatures for the "good" or (god forbid) alter evolution?

How does changing DNA to something-like-DNA (that apparently is fundamentally different) not kill all creatures in the universe? It's taking the basic 'unit of life' (ex. the cell) and gutting it.

...I wonder how retroviruses work in the synthesis universe.

SPACE MAGIC!

[YNation913]

paxbanana3915 wrote...

YNation913 wrote...

I'm trying to say that rather than being a manipulation of genes at an individual level, synthesis redefines DNA by creating building blocks of a different composition all together. How this new DNA goes about replacing the old DNA is impossible to say, though. 

Okay, I see that point. I've wondered about how this all would work ultimately.

I have trouble understanding how changing DNA to something-like-DNA will do anything different than DNA considering how it works cellularly. Does something-like-DNA code ultimately for something-like-protein? How does that change creatures for the "good" or (god forbid) alter evolution?

How does changing DNA to something-like-DNA (that apparently is fundamentally different) not kill all creatures in the universe? It's taking the basic 'unit of life' (ex. the cell) and gutting it.

...I wonder how retroviruses work in the synthesis universe.

SPACE MAGIC!

Well, Mass Effect seems to use as yet undiscovered elements with convenient properties to fill in the blanks of how stuff works, so I imagine it's something similar for the new DNA-like-code. That or magic, I guess.

Modifié par YNation913, 24 avril 2012 - 01:14 .

[ArchDuck]

Anduin The Grey wrote...

You got a link to a video where the Catalyst mentions Apex of Evolution. Just woke up so forgive my lack of proper research but the video I just watched says is the final evolution of all life. I'd like to know how anyone here can explain how synthetic life and organic life can be combined let alone how it can't evolve?

Maybe it's just one of those differences made by EMS just like the whole "the crucible changed me but I can't/I won't make the change" thing.

Here at 4:47

Your right that it states the final evolution.

Modifié par ArchDuck, 24 avril 2012 - 01:14 .

[d-boy15]

It's not that hard, if you think galaxy should choose their own path even it may lead to
their own destruction choose "destroy option". also, this option will cost the geth.

if you think you can control the reapers and maintain peace forever choose "control"
but reaper are still exist and there is a chance that cycle may continued.

if you believe in catalyst logic and think that his solution can bring peace forever then
"synthasis" is the choice for you but it will cost your a nature of entire race.

if you already play human revolution, you will see the same pattern (which is super lame
in term of presentation in mass effect 3)

darrow ending, destruction ending - destroy
- put faith in humanity, trust that they can find their answer on their own, in this case you
give the truth or destory all influlence factor. both choice will cost  human life on station or
the technology advancement.

sarif ending - synthasis
- believe that the only revolution of human is need to archieve by cybernatic tech, it the only
way to fight with illuminati is make everyone equally.

taggart ending - control
- put you trust in illuminati to maintain order of society but there is no garuntee that they wil
do what they promise to do.

Modifié par d-boy15, 24 avril 2012 - 01:26 .

[frostajulie]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Like you said, this is essentially genetic rape, so yes, it is.

This right here.  At first I was all like yay we will eliminate our differences and be one unified people.  But then I was all like ewww and had flashbacks to Sheps vision in ME1 guts and goo over wires and metal.

Yet another reason the ending is a travesty

[Skull Bearer]

Anduin The Grey wrote...

stysiaq wrote...

Synthesis is a disgrace of all the writing in games, combined with the greeny circuits present on leaves if you foolishly choose it.
it is:
- cheesy
- dumb
- campy
- anti-climatic
- lazy (they just put a circuits layer on textures/eyes)
- full of fail
- illogical
- space magical (don't quote Clarke for once please)
- DUMBDUMBDUMBDUMB

It's certainly different, so was the lack of boss ending. How many flops became cult classics 20 years later? We'll only know then.

Most of these flops were only flops due to lack of exposure/bad luck on release dates/bad marketing. Mass Effect had none of these.

[Anduin The Grey]

ArchDuck wrote...

Anduin The Grey wrote...

You got a link to a video where the Catalyst mentions Apex of Evolution. Just woke up so forgive my lack of proper research but the video I just watched says is the final evolution of all life. I'd like to know how anyone here can explain how synthetic life and organic life can be combined let alone how it can't evolve?

Maybe it's just one of those differences made by EMS just like the whole "the crucible changed me but I can't/I won't make the change" thing.

Here at 4:47

Your right that it states the final evolution.

Oh ok, I just have one last question then, are you guys just making this up as you go along? Since when is final evolution of life the apex of evolution.

Modifié par Anduin The Grey, 24 avril 2012 - 05:53 .

[Cypher_CS]

Again, we've been through this previously in this topic.

1. Moral Evil:
All three choices are Moral Evils. There is no Moral Good. Not even Control.
You may debate which of them is the lesser Moral Evil - but it will still be a heavy topic to debate.
In all three Choices all life in the Galaxy fundamentally changes.

2. DNA Change via Synthesis.
It's not about changing right here and right now. It's about changing the Framework. Adding additional Information to that Framework, and still allowing Natural Selection take it's course, only now with more information.
Maybe think of it like the difference between Near Random Choices (Natural Selection with current DNA) and Educated Guess Choices (how it would be with that additional "information").
Read: http://io9.com/59032...-the-real-thing

3. Final Stage.
Again, this is a Final Stage according to a single being who can't see past it. That's all.
Just like Leto II couldn't see past Duncan Idaho.
It doesn't mean it's the end of Evolution, it means something along the lines of being the Final Stage of the ****** Erectus-Sapiens-Digitalis (nice name, no?) arc.

[ArchDuck]

Anduin The Grey wrote...

ArchDuck wrote...

Here at 4:47

Your right that it states the final evolution.

Oh ok, I just have one last question then, are you guys just making this up as you go along? Since when is final evolution of life the apex of evolution.

Just a mistake in remembering, but the meaning is the same and as incorrectly used by the catalyst. There is no such thing as a final evolution. Unless its the last one before everything dies. "Final" is used in the manner of the crowning/end/eventual/supreme/ultimate definition of the word.

Which means this point is still entirely valid:

ArchDuck wrote...

The catalyst logic is wrong. Evolution by definition has no final evolutionary state.
Also if it did, you could not know what form that would be unless you also knew, with 100% certainty, the exact course of the future.

So can the reapers/catalyst know the future with 100% certainty?
If the answer is "no" then they have no clue what the final state of evolution is.
If the answer is "yes" then there is nothing to discuss because they can do and know the impossible so reapers win, the end.

Bolded the word changed to make it more correct to what the catalyst said.

Modifié par ArchDuck, 24 avril 2012 - 06:53 .

[Cypher_CS]

Maybe

Just Maybe

Synthesis means (based on the XNA article on io9 linked above) or might mean that breeding can be done interspecies?
Not just Asari being able to mind**** (actual astrisks) any species and make their own offsprings.
But actually being able to move information between Asari DNA to Human DNA or Krogan (yes, there are some sick people on these forums) or Salarians (even sicker...) or Quarians or whatever.
Not just enjoy sex, but actual procreate.

Maybe.

Just maybe.

[Read that article before replying, please]

[Cypher_CS]

Archduke,

I think the Reapers and by extension the Starkid have demonstrated enough times that they are quite full of themselves. Justifiably so, with so many cycles being uncontested. So sure, they can easily claim wild claims (like pinnacle of life or final stage of evolution) without necessarily you taking them on their word.

[Anduin The Grey]

ArchDuck wrote...

InHarmsWay wrote...

Thing is the
Catalyst specifically called synthesis is the apex of evolution. By
using the word apex, that means the peak of evolution. Meaning that
there's no where to go from there. No more evolution.

I know it, you know it and he knows it. He just thinks the catalyst is a liar or delusional.

This is where the current argument got confused, at least for me. Now I like your posts a lot, several times you've asked for clarification on where someones ideas came from exactly where within the games and no-ones had an answer to them.

Now I'm not disputing that the Catalyst may well be delusional and a liar however the term Apex took over and led the argument in the wrong direction. Apex means no evolution, as in cannot be improved upon, which led to the catalyst being said delusional liar. Neither of which is for certain at this point.

There are scant few details as it is, ergo the constantly revolving arguments on definitions and semantics but the words used by the writers are of paramount importance as they are the only leads and clues we have. The characters may lie but the writers have a duty to tell the truth, even if they employ misdirection to mislead us from what will happen.

Otherwise if the writers words cannot be trusted then there's no point to constructive argument at all, because they would clearly have carte blanche to make up anything as they went a long.

[Phategod1]

Was It disgusting when Legion forced the Reaper code on the rest of the geth? There was no consensus among all geth just legions collective programs. It's the same thing,

[Bfler]

Phategod1 wrote...

Was It disgusting when Legion forced the Reaper code on the rest of the geth? There was no consensus among all geth just legions collective programs. It's the same thing,

He gave them a free will and personality
With synthesis you ignore free will and personality.

Modifié par Bfler, 24 avril 2012 - 07:32 .

[d-boy15]

legion idea of improve geth by reaper code is a little disgusting for me, make me disappoint.

what happen with "geth find their own path" ??? in the destroy ending of mass effect 2 they just
tell shepard that it's interesting that shepard reject to use collecter's base. in mass effect 3 they
just  tell us that it's a good idea to upgrade by reaper code.

it's a shame that writer just turn geth from idealist robot in to hypocrite robot...

Modifié par d-boy15, 24 avril 2012 - 07:37 .

[liggy002]

Phategod1 wrote...

Was It disgusting when Legion forced the Reaper code on the rest of the geth? There was no consensus among all geth just legions collective programs. It's the same thing,

Yes it was disgusting.

[Cypher_CS]

Bfler wrote...

Phategod1 wrote...

Was It disgusting when Legion forced the Reaper code on the rest of the geth? There was no consensus among all geth just legions collective programs. It's the same thing,

He gave them a free will and personality
With synthesis you ignore free will and personality.

What?!?!?

No you don't.
There's no ignoring of free will and personality with Synthesis.
Where did you get that from?

[Sharn01]

I found synthesis to not only be the most morally repugnant of all the choices, its the one that is the most unbelievable as well, the space magic is truly strong with this choice.

[julio77777]

Actually discussing of how it works is kinda pointless since we have no facts to base our arguments from...

You can speculate all you want, in the end it's just hypothesis since the only explanation came from starkid (and he's not exactly trustworthy to begin with).

There is one thing however, even if the result is a super advanced galactic civilization that loves unicorn and rainbows, the very fact of choosing that option is wrong, you play god, and that goes against everything Shepard fought for.

Oh and if there is no evolution there is only stagnation, it  is far worse, just saying.

Modifié par julio77777, 24 avril 2012 - 08:03 .