897 réponses à ce sujet

[Kushan101]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

Mr. Gamble seems to find it a confusing concept that we already considered synthetics as equally valid forms of life. The organic and synthetic lifeform dichotomy is entirely fabricated, and the solution proposed is atrociously immoral. Why must organics and synthetics be merged into one? They're already life, and they each have a place in the cosmos. Synthesis takes away their future and everything they could become through the natural progession of a sentient culture.

Thats good. Damn. That's REALLY good. You've summed it up nicely there sir/madam/what have you.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Sisterofshane wrote...

[quote]Redwing198403 wrote...


1.) The universe changes itself anyway with evolution, it doesn't work the same way for billions and billions of years

[/quote]

That would be nature...  You shouldn't force evolution with a technological magic wand.  Every species has to evolve on their own terms.  The series says this a number of times.

[/quote]

We can even go a step farther with this and say that the reason why we continue to exist in the universe is BECAUSE of evolution. 
An inability to evolve leads to stagnation and to inability to adapt. The universe, however, has proven to us that it is ALWAYS changing. If we have reached an evolutionary "endpoint", then where to we have to go except to create more/better/advanced technology - so exactly how does "synthesis" and the end of evolution solve the problems of technological singularity?

[/quote]

Indeed the starbrat is appallingly wrong on that point alone.  There is no "Apex of Evolution".  Indeed the term is an oxymoron as you so adroitly explain.

-Polaris

[Taboo]

Man, I'd be all for sending Bioware mass copies of Richard Dawkins books.

The thought........

[Shaigunjoe]

IanPolaris wrote...
Indeed the starbrat is appallingly wrong on that point alone.  There is no "Apex of Evolution".  Indeed the term is an oxymoron as you so adroitly explain.
-Polaris

It all depends on how you use the term evolution.  In a biological sense, you can have the end of evolution, humanity has pretty much already reached it.  The fastest human is no longer determined by how quick he can run, but how fast his machine can take him.  Human intellect is supplemented by computers.  We are no longer a slave to our genes as far as adapting to our environment is concerned.

If you think of evolution in the more looser sense of 'evolution of jet design' then yea, I can see your point, but I do not understand why people insist of interpreting something the starchild says in a way that makes no sense instead of a way that does.

[nicethugbert]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Redwing198403 wrote...


1.) The universe changes itself anyway with evolution, it doesn't work the same way for billions and billions of years

That would be nature...  You shouldn't force evolution with a technological magic wand.  Every species has to evolve on their own terms.  The series says this a number of times.



We can even go a step farther with this and say that the reason why we continue to exist in the universe is BECAUSE of evolution. 
An inability to evolve leads to stagnation and to inability to adapt. The universe, however, has proven to us that it is ALWAYS changing. If we have reached an evolutionary "endpoint", then where to we have to go except to create more/better/advanced technology - so exactly how does "synthesis" and the end of evolution solve the problems of technological singularity?

I don't think letting species evolve on their own terms is the renegade position.  Synthesis is not renegade or paragon.  It's the compromise between the two.

Synthesis creates a hybrid organic/synthetic DNA.  Evolution is still posible.

All Synthesis did was end The Cycle by making all life Synthesized so that synthetic life would not extinct organic life.  It solved the problem that The Catalyst was trying to solve with The Cycle.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 29 avril 2012 - 12:55 .

[nicethugbert]

IanPolaris wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...


When the Geth became alive, they became individuals.  So, to assume that a synthetic life form is Geth or Geth like as you describe is to assume falsly.  Also, organics do not become useful to the reapers nor do they serve them if Shepard chooses synthesis.  The reapers become alive, therefore, free from Starchilds control and no longer have any imperative to harvest the galaxy.

Yeah but they no longer have any incentive NOT to either and harvesting other life is the only existance they have known for tens of thousands (if not millions) of years.  That's assumine the Reapers won't want to lord it over everyone with their overwhelming power anyway.

Shepard specifically asks (about synthetis), "...but there will be peace?" and Starbrat NEVER ANSWERS THE QUESTION.

So you are basically violating all life on the most basic level, killing yourself, FOR NOTHING!

-Polaris

If Shep had cured the common cold through out the galaxy would he have violated everyone capable of getting the common cold?  It is assumed that Synthesis is a bad thing, that individuals cease to be themselves when they become Synthetic.

And, yes, The Catalyst did not answer Shepards question.  But, don't organics fight each other?  How can The Catalyst guarantee that Synthsized life will not fight amongst itself?  Or that some Synthesized Life will not go back to being organic or synthetic and wage war?  The only problem that concerns the Crucible is the extinction of organic life by synthetic life.  He solved the problem by removing the distinction so they do not have that one incentive to fight.  And, organic life augments itself synthetically anyway.

[Patchwork]

The only way synthesis can be the apex/final evolution (I forget the exact wording Starkid used) is if it actively prevents any further evolution or mutation. People will either survive in their current state or they die.

Couple that with the new one race having to be creatively brain-dead to prevent a pure synthetics verses cyborgs(?) war and I really struggle to see the benefit of Synthesis even if I could get passed the playing God aspect.

Javik even offers a cautionary tale about a species who augmented themselves with tech and AIs only to have it turn on them by weeding out the weak organic parts of themselves. That's the logical future of Synthesis right there.

[Taboo]

Humans have not stopped evolving. Evolution never truly stops. There will always be outside threats to adapt and survive against unless of course we are presented with a universe that has no threats.

[Shaigunjoe]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Humans have not stopped evolving. Evolution never truly stops. There will always be outside threats to adapt and survive against unless of course we are presented with a universe that has no threats.

But we stopped relying on genetic adaption a long time ago, it just takes too long for our purposes.

Definition of biological evolution from dictionary.com in case you have any more questions:

EDIT (ok, copy/paste from dictionary.com not my friend, here is the link:)

http://dictionary.re...e/evolution?s=t

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 29 avril 2012 - 01:23 .

[Taboo]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Humans have not stopped evolving. Evolution never truly stops. There will always be outside threats to adapt and survive against unless of course we are presented with a universe that has no threats.

But we stopped relying on genetic adaption a long time ago, it just takes too long for our purposes.

Definition of biological evolution from dictionary.com in case you have any more questions:

EDIT (ok, copy/paste from dictionary.com not my friend, here is the link:)

http://dictionary.re...e/evolution?s=t

Well I hope that something comes along to change that because I look forward to my ancestors becoming super men.

It still doesn't forgive Bioware wanting me to believe that there is an apex of evolution.

[Shaigunjoe]

Taboo-XX wrote...
Well I hope that something comes along to change that because I look forward to my ancestors becoming super men.

They probably will be, but not becuase of biological evolution.

It still doesn't forgive Bioware wanting me to believe that there is an apex of evolution.

Well, it would help if you would understand that end of evolution does not mean apex, not sure why you would think evolution would continue but go down hill.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 29 avril 2012 - 01:34 .

[ReXspec]

I can see where Gamble was trying to take the idea, but the concept fell flat on it's face when the line between unity and uniformity was not drawn, or was intentionally blurred.

Racial or genetic uniformity =/= unity. Differences in how the Geth Heretics and "true" Geth developed proved this, thus defeating the purpose of synthesis altogether. You can make everyone part machine, but you can't remove their conscious differences.

Knowing that, my question for Mr Gamble would be, "Okay, so, if genetic uniformity is the ultimate form of unity, what was the point of overcoming cultural and racial difference by uniting the galaxy? Why replace that goal, with a superceding goal to 'unify' all races genetically? How does that make sense?"

A wise man once said, "THIS IS NOT ART. When you take a bunch of nonsense and add more nonsense to it, it doesn't make it art, it just makes MORE NONSENSE."

[Storin]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Indeed the starbrat is appallingly wrong on that point alone.  There is no "Apex of Evolution".  Indeed the term is an oxymoron as you so adroitly explain.
-Polaris

It all depends on how you use the term evolution.  In a biological sense, you can have the end of evolution, humanity has pretty much already reached it.  The fastest human is no longer determined by how quick he can run, but how fast his machine can take him.  Human intellect is supplemented by computers.  We are no longer a slave to our genes as far as adapting to our environment is concerned.

If you think of evolution in the more looser sense of 'evolution of jet design' then yea, I can see your point, but I do not understand why people insist of interpreting something the starchild says in a way that makes no sense instead of a way that does.

No you can't. Evolution doesn't end. It's simply the process of life changing and adapting to its environment. It can only end if either A) life itself has ended or the environment becomes entirely static and unchanging. That's why, yes, the idea of an "apex" of evolution is absurd. It doesn't work that way. Of course, Mass Effect 3 in general makes me wonder if the writers have a clue what evolution even is, given what various characters say about it. (Javik's comments about evolution are the worst; all his nonsense about the strong and the weak has nothing to do with evolution or natural selection at all.)

Well, it would help if you would understand that end of evolution does not mean apex, not sure why you would think evolution would continue but go down hill.

Evolution doesn't go "down hill". Life adapts to its environment. That's all there is to it. It's only a subjective social construct to view this as bad or good.

Modifié par Storin, 29 avril 2012 - 02:20 .

[Omega Torsk]

To me, the result of Synthesis isn't "living" as much as it is simply "existing," making it the more reprehensible of the choices...

[mauro2222]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

It all depends on how you use the term evolution.  In a biological sense, you can have the end of evolution, humanity has pretty much already reached it.  The fastest human is no longer determined by how quick he can run, but how fast his machine can take him.  Human intellect is supplemented by computers.  We are no longer a slave to our genes as far as adapting to our environment is concerned.

Technology makes us evolve, it does not stop evolution.

[Taboo]

Omega Torsk wrote...

To me, the result of Synthesis isn't "living" as much as it is simply "existing," making it the more reprehensible of the choices...

Which makes it all the more painful that Brave New World was sited as an influence.

[Shaigunjoe]

mauro2222 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

It all depends on how you use the term evolution.  In a biological sense, you can have the end of evolution, humanity has pretty much already reached it.  The fastest human is no longer determined by how quick he can run, but how fast his machine can take him.  Human intellect is supplemented by computers.  We are no longer a slave to our genes as far as adapting to our environment is concerned.

Technology makes us evolve, it does not stop evolution.

But that is where you are wrong, technology does not change our genes to adapt to our surroundings, rather it does the adapting  for us.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 29 avril 2012 - 02:56 .

[Shaigunjoe]

Storin wrote...

No you can't. Evolution doesn't end. It's simply the process of life changing and adapting to its environment.

Let me fix your definition to make it accurate:
It's simply the process of life changing and adapting to its environment by natural selection,genetic drift, and genetic muation.  Under synthesis, all of these things are gone, hence why evolution is dead.


It can only end if either A) life itself has ended or the environment becomes entirely static and unchanging. That's why, yes, the idea of an "apex" of evolution is absurd. It doesn't work that way. Of course, Mass Effect 3 in general makes me wonder if the writers have a clue what evolution even is, given what various characters say about it. (Javik's comments about evolution are the worst; all his nonsense about the strong and the weak has nothing to do with evolution or natural selection at all.)

Evolution doesn't go "down hill". Life adapts to its environment. That's all there is to it. It's only a subjective social construct to view this as bad or good.

That was exaclty my point, an apex is continous, an end is discontinous.  Some people seem to think the catalyst suggest the apex of evolution (see Taboo's above post), but that is not what the catalyst says.  It clearly states the end of evolution.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 29 avril 2012 - 03:03 .

[Taboo]

We still don't have any information.

We have yet to reach a consensus.

NO amount of information however will ever make me believe it is ethical for one person to make such a choice.......

[Shaigunjoe]

Taboo-XX wrote...

We still don't have any information.

We have yet to reach a consensus.

NO amount of information however will ever make me believe it is ethical for one person to make such a choice.......

Right!  None of the options in the catalyst are ethical, it wouldn't be a moral dilemma if there was a clear ethical option.

You seem so bent on reaching a consensus, but yet you harp on the importance of diversity?

[Taboo]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

We still don't have any information.

We have yet to reach a consensus.

NO amount of information however will ever make me believe it is ethical for one person to make such a choice.......

Right!  None of the options in the catalyst are ethical, it wouldn't be a moral dilemma if there was a clear ethical option.

You seem so bent on reaching a consensus, but yet you harp on the importance of diversity?

I believe that one can only have a rational debate if one can see something from someone elses point of view. I am usually alone in this opinion however. I can certainly reach a consensus on what it does in the EC but I don't think I'll ever be able to do it.

[IanPolaris]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Let me fix your definition to make it accurate:
It's simply the process of life changing and adapting to its environment by natural selection,genetic drift, and genetic muation.  Under synthesis, all of these things are gone, hence why evolution is dead.

No.  That is only a small subset of evolution.  Evolution is the process of adopting it a natural environment period.  It's not specific to genetics at all.  In fact the theory of evolution and natural selection predates genetics (although admittedly not by much).  As such there is no "apex" to evolution.  It's in fact a contradiction.  One more reason to loath synthesis.

-Polaris

Edit:



ev·o·lu·tion   /ˌɛvəˈluʃən or, especially Brit., ˌivə-/ Show Spelled[ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-] Show IPA

noun
1. any process of formation or growth; [color=rgb(51,51,51)">development: the evolution of a language]evolution[/color] of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine

Cite:

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2012.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 29 avril 2012 - 03:14 .

[Shaigunjoe]

IanPolaris wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Let me fix your definition to make it accurate:
It's simply the process of life changing and adapting to its environment by natural selection,genetic drift, and genetic muation.  Under synthesis, all of these things are gone, hence why evolution is dead.

No.  That is only a small subset of evolution.  Evolution is the process of adopting it a natural environment period.  It's not specific to genetics at all.  In fact the theory of evolution and natural selection predates genetics (although admittedly not by much).  As such there is no "apex" to evolution.  It's in fact a contradiction.  One more reason to loath synthesis.

-Polaris

No, that is the very definition of biological evolution, what I said is correct.  Look it up.  Given the context of what the catalyst was talking about, that is what he meant.

Edit: Ah good, you looked it up, right there under biology.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 29 avril 2012 - 03:18 .

[Taboo]

The lack of information really rustles my jimmies.

Do we have an excerpt of what the Catalyst says?

[Madecologist]

I think a lot of people don't understand what a touch choice is. No, ME3 is not a touch choice. A tough choice is one where each choice posses a pro and a con, one that makes you doubt if you ever picked the best one. Even after choosing. Either choice is equally 'rewarding' but equally 'damning'.

Obviously this is hard to pull of since you want to make sure the 'balance' will be even for most people looking at the choice. Though you will always some who will feel certain that one is better. But as long as you have a bit of doubt in anybody, you have given the person a touch choice.

Giving someone three choices that all seem to be bad or 'evil', and then they choose the lesser of three evils is not a tough choice. You had no choice, you will always choose what you see as the least evil. This is just a touch situation and it is not the same.

Obviously people will have different opinions and the least evil will change for some, but internally to one individual the choice will always be obvious. They will choose the least evil choice. As I said... that is not a tough choice, its a touch situation.

Maybe this is what Bioware wanted... but from what I read from their comments... I don't think this is what they wanted. They wanted a choice, not people funneling down to picking what revolted them the least. Or if they are lucky, picking the once choice that was actually good.