897 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

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.

There is nothing that says we are talking about biological evolution and in fact synthetics can evolve too (talk to Edi or for that matter Tali regarding the Geth) and we know that we can NOT use just the organic/biolocial definition.

[MrRag]

Good post.

In ME1 the Reapers wanted Saren to believe that synthesis was the final evolution. In Arrival Shepard threatens Habinger to fight him just like Sovereign, then in the end suddenly decides it's a good idea to merge with the enemy.

Reapers are both synthethic and organic, so they won't be affected by synthesis. I guess Shepard turned the whole galaxy into Reaper minions.

[Taboo]

It makes me chuckle that this thread has lasted as long as it has.

People really, really hate synthesis.

[Shaigunjoe]

IanPolaris wrote...
There is nothing that says we are talking about biological evolution and in fact synthetics can evolve too (talk to Edi or for that matter Tali regarding the Geth) and we know that we can NOT use just the organic/biolocial definition.

There is a method on reading, and I suppose it is the same in watching a movie, called using context clues.  The catalyst is talking about rewriting DNA on the most fundamental level.  If that doesn't scream biology to you, then I can understand why you feel this is not the case.  But why assume something that doesn't make sense when it is just as easy to assume something that does?

[Cobra's_back]

IanPolaris wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

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.

There is nothing that says we are talking about biological evolution and in fact synthetics can evolve too (talk to Edi or for that matter Tali regarding the Geth) and we know that we can NOT use just the organic/biolocial definition.

STar Child tells shepard it is "the Final evolution of life". These are the writers words not mine.



The second thing that does not make sense to me is the destroyer reaper telling Shepard that Shepard is chaos per Harbinger. The reaper also tells Shepard that they are order.
 
Star Child tells Shepard the reapers are his solution to chaos. How is Green going to solve the problem? If they are all hybrids and it hasn’t controlled their minds then an evil hybrid is still evil and can cause chaos. I don’t see anything fixed.

[Chuvvy]

Bioware is implying Shepard was willing to be disintegrated to "merge" with a seven year old boy, nothing weird about that.

[Taboo]

Slidell505 wrote...

Bioware is implying Shepard was willing to be disintegrated to "merge" with a seven year old boy, nothing weird about that.

Actually it's ALL the children everywhere.

Problem?

Hide yo' kids. Hide yo' wife. ETC. ETC.

[Cobra's_back]

Taboo-XX wrote...

It makes me chuckle that this thread has lasted as long as it has.

People really, really hate synthesis.

and it was so poorly thought out.

[oneyedjohn]

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.......

this is one of the reasons I think the real thematic conflict is fate vs free will instead of organic life vs synthic life. beause it has already stated with both the geth and EDI that they are alive as organics.

though out the game we fight against the predermand destruction of the universe by either embrasing the gelatic community and/or making sure all of these squabling alien factions fall in line to face a greater threat. while the paragon aproch rejects the machineory of pragmatilsm, and the renagade co ops it. each aproch is ultimitly trying to destroy what the reapers represent, the predetermand death of humanity in both its phisical and metaphisical form.

the thing is if they aloud you to ally your self with Cerberus in ME3 I wouldn't be so mad. because they are the most transhumanist of all of the factions in ME3. but they are so card caring villins that while some of there ideas have merrit. to give up our metaphysical humanity to surivive. it destroies any crediblity they have as legit way of ending the conflic, yet this is what at least two if not all three endings require you to do to "solve" the questions of synthictic life. when the question should be, "What is the price of  self determination and is worth it?"

[zovoes]

Taboo-XX wrote...

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.

what? WHAT?!!?? and thats what they think is a "good" or "happy" ending? what the hell are they on?

[Taboo]

zovoes wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

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.

what? WHAT?!!?? and thats what they think is a "good" or "happy" ending? what the hell are they on?

You know the infmaous "LOTS OF SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE" page. Brave New World is written on the page.

OH YEAH.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 29 avril 2012 - 03:37 .

[IanPolaris]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
There is nothing that says we are talking about biological evolution and in fact synthetics can evolve too (talk to Edi or for that matter Tali regarding the Geth) and we know that we can NOT use just the organic/biolocial definition.

There is a method on reading, and I suppose it is the same in watching a movie, called using context clues.  The catalyst is talking about rewriting DNA on the most fundamental level.  If that doesn't scream biology to you, then I can understand why you feel this is not the case.  But why assume something that doesn't make sense when it is just as easy to assume something that does?

No because he is talking about synthetics and synthetics don't have biology.  You are assuming your conclusion is true as a premise to prove you conclusion.  This is a classical logical error.  We are told that life is not unique to organics (see Legion) and as such there is no way "evolution' can be interpreted in purely the biological sense without assuming the conclusion you are trying to prove.

-Polaris

[zovoes]

Taboo-XX wrote...

zovoes wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

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.

what? WHAT?!!?? and thats what they think is a "good" or "happy" ending? what the hell are they on?

You know the infmaous "LOTS OF SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE" page. Brave New World is written on the page.

OH YEAH.

[Taboo]

zovoes wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

zovoes wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

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.

what? WHAT?!!?? and thats what they think is a "good" or "happy" ending? what the hell are they on?

You know the infmaous "LOTS OF SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE" page. Brave New World is written on the page.

OH YEAH.

It seriously makes me question Mr. Walters ability to make an inference of a book.

THEY MAKE YOU READ IT IN HIGH SCHOOL AS A WARNING.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 29 avril 2012 - 03:42 .

[Sisterofshane]

nicethugbert wrote...

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.

For the italicised part, if you are to take the Catalyst at it's word (which, if you are taking the Synthesis option I am assuming you are), then you would be wrong.  He refers to it as the "pinnacle" of evolution.  Having reached it's peak, where else is there for it to go?  However, we know that this goes against everything we understand about evolution.  Even synthetics evolve - albeit in a controlled, methodical manner.  This leads me to believe that the Catalyst is just displaying an opinion - and if it has the ability to be subjective about this, that would lead it to have motives and desires in the same way that we do (ie, self preservation, favoritism...)  So we shouuld probably take everything it says with a grain of salt.

The bolded part is what confuses me.  Why the emphasis on organic life?  The very act of synthesis (as I would understand it as told by the catalyst) gets rid of organic life.  So the ideal solution is to get rid of the very thing you were trying to save in the first place?

[Shaigunjoe]

Taboo-XX wrote...

zovoes wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

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.

what? WHAT?!!?? and thats what they think is a "good" or "happy" ending? what the hell are they on?

You know the infmaous "LOTS OF SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE" page. Brave New World is written on the page.

OH YEAH.

Man, I'd love to see that page, too bad you have to pay like 2 or 3 bucks, not worth it, was their a date in the notebook?

[Cobra's_back]

nicethugbert wrote...

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.

Someone needs to tell the writer this. He is the one who wrote the script. Star child tells Shepard it is the final evolution of life. It is also in you tube best green ending called catalyst complete conversation. Here is the link

[IanPolaris]

Taboo-XX wrote...

zovoes wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

zovoes wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

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.

what? WHAT?!!?? and thats what they think is a "good" or "happy" ending? what the hell are they on?

You know the infmaous "LOTS OF SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE" page. Brave New World is written on the page.

OH YEAH.

It seriously makes me question Mr. Walters ability to make an inference of a book.

THAT'S FOR SURE.

THEY MAKE YOU READ IT IN HIGH SCHOOL AS A WARNING.

Yep, right along with "1984" and "Animal Farm" as examples of "negative utopias" or dystopias.  I really don't get Mr. Walters on this either.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 29 avril 2012 - 03:44 .

[oneyedjohn]

Taboo-XX wrote...

zovoes wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

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.

what? WHAT?!!?? and thats what they think is a "good" or "happy" ending? what the hell are they on?

You know the infmaous "LOTS OF SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE" page. Brave New World is written on the page.

OH YEAH.

Just when my faith in bioware couldn't get any lower...

[Taboo]

DOES THIS RUSTLE YOUR JIMMIES?


 http://img694.images...57/24532595.jpg

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 29 avril 2012 - 03:45 .

[Cobra's_back]

Taboo-XX wrote...

DOES THIS RUSTLE YOUR JIMMIES?


 http://img694.images...57/24532595.jpg

Yes it does.

[Taboo]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

DOES THIS RUSTLE YOUR JIMMIES?


 http://img694.images...57/24532595.jpg

Yes it does.

How dense can you be?

I'm in ****ing awe.

How did he become the lead writer?

[BouncyCaitian]

Taboo-XX wrote...

DOES THIS RUSTLE YOUR JIMMIES?


 http://img694.images...57/24532595.jpg

*facepalm* <_<

[Taboo]

From my mailbag.

 

I apologize if that sounds arrogant, but in a previous career I was a laboratory scientist (a geneticist/cell biologist) and I fear I have allowed the constant misunderstanding of evolution to wear my skin thin. 

To put it simply, beyond whatever morally offensive elements exist in the endings, Synthesis at least is purely in the range of "magic". And by that I mean that if you are willing to believe the given narration, it is equally plausible for the explanation to be that mud will be scooped from the banks of the river Ganges and shaped into a new form, and the breath of Shepard shall give animation to their limbs.

Synthesis involves a level of technological sophistication nothing short of divine. A level clearly beyond the capacity of the Reapers.

[Delta_V2]

copy-pasting my response in another thread in response to the whole "altering DNA but leaving your personality intact":

[Quote]
A lot of people claim that it would just change people's DNA, but leave their personality/individuality perfectly intact. Simply put, this isn't possible.

Let's use an analogy: Legion's loyalty mission. The virus the Heretics were going to use altered a single program, and this changed all higher processes. Changing a core process would fundamentally alter the geth's decision making and 'personality'.

The same thing would happen if you start messing with DNA. Changing a person's DNA, at least on the level required for this synthesis of organic and synthetic, will change everything else. Your personality may be more than just the coding in your DNA, but you can bet it is influenced by it. Changing your DNA will change your personality. You will no longer be "You". If that is the case, I don't care what the supposed benefits are, forcing this change on people is unacceptable.

Modifié par Delta_V2, 29 avril 2012 - 03:57 .