897 réponses à ce sujet

[Shaigunjoe]

IanPolaris wrote...
This is not meant to be taken as literal synthetic DNA.

I never said synthetic DNA (and neither does he), as synthetic DNA does not exist, a new DNA framework is being made where the standard definition organic/synthetic no longer apply and genetic drift etc are no longer required to change your genome.

Even aside from that, this is a Taboo forum thread, and I know he adhere's to the 'starchild is to be taken literarly' philosophy (Taboo, if you read this and I am over generalizing, I'm sorry).  So if you want to start discussion on allegorical interpretations of what the catalyst says, you might want to start a different thread.

2.  He clearly identifies synethic life as life (as does the game before), but synethics don't have a biology.  Ergo the larger and more general definition is the one being used.

They also don't have DNA which is purely biological and the DNA framework is being changed which is the ultimate result of synthesis.

No it's very valid.  You are assuming a very narrow definition of organic biological evolution because it's the only way you can support your point.  You are assuming what you are trying to prove.  As I said, life in Mass Effect has a much larger definition than simply organic life and evolution is used in a much broader context too and I've cited examples of this in the game before the final act.

You are actively imposing the most stringint and restrictive (and likely incorrect given the rest of the game) because it's the only way you can make your point.  There is no evidence that the catalyist/starbrat is being this technical and plenty of indicators that he's not.  It makes perfect sense to read it in the most general way on a purely language basis.  It just so happens that the starbrat is horribly wrong and his ideas have no logical coherence but that's true pretty much for anything he says.

Oh, and likely incorrect?  As long as it isn't 100% impossible. As Sherlock Holmes said "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

Aside from that, now you are shifting the argument from literal to a more figurative argument, this is not the place for that.  Personally I feel like you do not want ot take what the star kid says at face value, but I jumped in this thread to play the literal game (so we have to assume the star kid is telling the truth).  Basically, under the rules of this forum thread, The final evolution of life phrase is true.  I put forth an interpretation that makes sense, and one that doesn't warrent all the hate synthesis gets.

I've read it.  However, look it up.  Evolution by it's very definition never stops until and unless life/time itself does ande in Mass Effect life is not restricted to carbon based life.  EDI explains it very well when arguing with Javik in the AI core.

You did not read it, if life goes on without genetic drift/mutation and natural selection then biological evolution is not taking place.  Why can't life go on without these things?  The definition does not say the population will cease to be.

[Cypher_CS]

[quote]Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Synthesis....reminds me of how the reavers were created.[/quote]

Not really.
The Reavers were created by adverse reaction to a basic neurotoxin. Nothing more.

[quote]Sisterofshane wrote...

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]


- Final Stage doesn't mean End Of....
- More importantly, it's a Final Stage according to a fallible character. Not the All Knowing Narrator's word.

[quote]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.

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.

[/quote] 

Again, Final Stage doesn't mean the end.
It's just the final stage in the eyes of the Catalyst.
Think of it as the next stage after ****** Erectus and Home Sapiens.
There's evolution at work within each of those stages.

That's the idea of a Final Stage.


[quote]nicethugbert wrote...

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.
[/quote]


Who?
Who exactly assumes this?
And why? Why would the afforementioned "who" assume such a thing on the Absence of any Evidence to that effect?

[quote]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.
[/quote] 

Again, says who?

A few quotes from: 
http://io9.com/59032...-the-real-thing 

New research has brought us closer than ever to synthesizing entirely new forms of life. An international team of researchers has shown that artificial nucleic acids - called "XNAs" - can replicate and evolve, just like DNA and RNA. 

And this:

A simplified analogy reveals the strengths and weaknesses of this novel genetic system: You can think of a DNA strand like a classmate's lecture notes. DNA polymerase is the pen that lets you copy these notes directly to a new sheet of paper. But let's say your friend's notes are written in the "language" of XNA. Ideally, your XNA-based genetic system would have a pen that could copy these notes directly to a new sheet of paper. What Pinheiro's team did was create two distinct classes of writing utensil — one pen that copies your friend's XNA-notes into DNA-notes, and a second pen that converts those DNA notes back into XNA-notes. 

That, I think, is the epitome of Synthesis.

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

No because he is talking about synthetics and synthetics don't have biology.  

-Polaris[/quote]

Says who?
Again, there's a difference between Mechanics and Synthetics.
Mechanics don't have biology, Synthetics can be Synthesized from biologic and chemics components.

Of course, an AI residing on a Biological framework is still an AI.

[quote]Shaigunjoe wrote...


Wrong again, the conclusion the 'end of evolution'.   Not an assumption, that is verbatim what was said, and as far as facts go thats really all we have.

[/quote] 
Really? Is that really verbatim what was said?
Check again, and then check how you're trying to refit your logic.

[quote]Hawk227 wrote...

I'm not sure how I feel about this. So much of who we are (our personality) is environmental. There isn't necessarily a charismatic gene, or a brave gene. Although a number of biochemical processes (themselves genetically governed) may impact these traits, it's our life experiences that shape who we are. Although, that being said, the base functionality of the human brain is very much genetically based, minor adjustments to the genes that support neural development would result in a very different brain.

More to the point. In real life, the genetic differences between species is often quite little. Humans and Chimpanzees share ~97% of their DNA. Humans and Mice share somewhere between 70% and 90% of their DNA. It would not take much tinkering of DNA to make us (literally) no longer recognizable as human (even human/synthetic hybrids).

[/quote]

That's a great response to his DNA->Change Personality tirade.
Thanks.

[quote]Hawk227 wrote... 


Also, how do you make DNA that encodes for computer chips (or whatever)?. That is very much NOT how DNA works. DNA is the most basic blue print for proteins. It is a macromolecule of ribose, phosphate, and adenine, thymine, guanosine, and cytosine. This macromolecule is "read" by proteins that transcribe it into mRNA (a sort of molecular negative) which is then "read" by a ribosome that associates RNA codons (three successive nucleotides) with a particular amino acid. Whenever it sees (for example) the codon ACC, it "knows" to place a Threonine molecule next in the chain. Amino acids (like threonine) are all just more organic molecules made up of Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and in some cases something as exotic as sulfur. Once a protein is done being "written" by the ribosome, its own biochemical properties (and maybe help from additional proteins) cause it to bend into its three dimensional shape. This process is all done with an outrageously elaborate biochemical system, with dozens of different proteins, and has been more or less the same since the first single celled organisms came about billions of years ago.

Plus, you know.... Synthetics don't have DNA. Not even all organic life (Yes, I mean in real life) has DNA. Some species of microorganisms use RNA, a similar, but ultimately different molecule. 

The entire concept of synthesis is preposterous, and the notion that peace can only be achieved through homogenization is morally abhorrent. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/sick.png[/smilie]

[/quote]

Two things.

First of all, there's lots of research going on into organic based computers. So it is doable. Not synthesis, I mean, but making computers synthetically biological.


Secondly, no one is talking about homogenization. Or rather, that's just an assumption based on lack of data.
Yes, if that assumption is correct - then it's all crap.
Otherwise, it can lead to some interesting things. Read the above article on XNA, btw.


[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

I am virtually certain (listening to starbrat again on you-tube) that the Starbrat was being allegorical when talking about a "new DNA". He seems to be talking about organic-synethic fusion and with the sole (and glaring) exception of Shepard, merging machines with organics at the most basic level never ends well.....

-Polaris[/quote]
Yes, he was indeed sounding allegorical.
Talking about a new framework, not actually changing everyone to homogenized goo.

[quote]Shaigunjoe wrote...

I never said synthetic DNA (and neither does he), as synthetic DNA does not exist, a new DNA framework is being made where the standard definition organic/synthetic no longer apply and genetic drift etc are no longer required to change your genome. 
[/quote]

Oh, it doesn't?
Hmmm....


[quote]Shaigunjoe wrote...

Even aside from that, this is a Taboo forum thread, and I know he adhere's to the 'starchild is to be taken literarly' philosophy (Taboo, if you read this and I am over generalizing, I'm sorry).
[/quote]
Doesn't mean we have to. Does it?

You seem to have a weird way of using logic.
We can argue with his point or help him achieve understanding ONLY if we follow his guidelines of false understanding?
Is that it?

[quote]Shaigunjoe wrote...

They also don't have DNA which is purely biological and the DNA framework is being changed which is the ultimate result of synthesis. 
[/quote]
So there's no way Geth or EDI actually reside or are based on biological hardware, as it were?
You do remember that the Geth soldiers are just platforms and not the actual Geth individuals, don't you? Same as the EDI body in ME3.

As Tali says, Geth can upload themselves to anything with enough processing power.
Be it a machine with a CPU and a HDD or an organic machine - with the proper interfaces - that has chemical based CPUs and storage (they exist today).

[quote]Shaigunjoe wrote...

Oh, and likely incorrect?  As long as it isn't 100% impossible. As Sherlock Holmes said "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". 
[/quote]
Seriously? Comparing yourself to Sherlock now?

Sorry, but that argument doesn't really hold up here, cause you haven't actually eliminated anything.

[Aquilas]

Here are a few things to consider:
 
Both nicethugbert and Cypher_CS cite new research into synthetic DNA. I’ll use the reference Cypher_CS provides:
 
XNA is synthetic DNA that's stronger than the real thing
 
Personally, I find this technology very exciting. It allows us to envision synthetic organism evolution—fantastic. But note: the process described in the article enables writing XNA to DNA and back. That’s not what the Catalyst is talking about. To use XNA for convenience, the Catalyst is claiming it can fuse XNA and DNA at the nuclear level, forming a new building block of life, a new DNA. It’s making a new life form.
 
Here’s the problem with that notion:
 

Taboo-XX wrote...

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.

 
Note that the former geneticist/biologist uses the word “divine” to describe what the Catalyst is claiming it can do. Again, I object to Synthesis because it appeals to a deity, or an AI-deity, something we haven’t seen in the ME universe until the last five minutes of ME3. The writers heretofore have taken great pains to make the physics and metaphysics in the ME universe coherent and consistent within the ME construct. And that all goes “poof” (pun intended) in Synthesis.
 

IanPolaris wrote...

I am virtually certain (listening to starbrat again on you-tube) that the Starbrat was being allegorical when talking about a "new DNA". He seems to be talking about organic-synethic fusion and with the sole (and glaring) exception of Shepard, merging machines with organics at the most basic level never ends well.....

-Polaris

 
The Catalyst speaks in absolutes. It asserts its truth as “The Truth.” When it says a new DNA will be formed, that’s exactly what it means. Listen to its tone and cadence throughout the entire dialogue. That slight pause before “DNA” in no way implies allegory.
 
But here’s the thing, as I’ve said in other threads: no matter what Shepard objects to—meaning no matter what we object to, since we’re Shepard—the choices the Catalyst gives Shepard are the choices Shepard has. I don’t say that facetiously: even though Shepard gets a crap sandwich with a choice of ketchup, or lettuce, or bleu cheese, Shepard still has to eat the crap sandwich, right?

Wrong. Shepard could give the finger to the Catalyst, could let the bet ride and roll the cosmic dice. That’s one of the fundamental precepts in ME, right? Shepard makes decisions with cosmic ramifications and is willing to accept the consequences. Shepard could affirm Emiliano Zapata’s principle: “It is better to die upon one’s feet than to live upon one’s knees!” Shepard says as much to Saren a few times in ME. In the “divine Catalyst” context, Shepard could refuse to genuflect at the Catalyst’s altar.

 That’s my fundamental objection to all three endings. I agree they’re intrinsically repugnant for various reasons, all well-stated in this thread. But not giving Shepard the choice to defy the Catalyst denies Shepard the last great act of defiance. You may want to Google that phrase and consider the cartoon associated with it.

Modifié par Aquilas, 29 avril 2012 - 04:54 .

[Shaigunjoe]

Cypher_CS wrote...
Snip

You must be new, as most of what you went over has already been addressed.

Final doesn't necessarily mean the end, I agree, but it doesn't necessarily mean it goes on either.  I was actually arguing under someone elses rules of interpretation, there are tons of ways you can interpret it looser to make it even easier.  But the point I was specifically against "evolution can never end, it doesn't make sense!" point.  Just showed an interpretation where, technically, biological evolution can end and life will go on. It may be due for a redefintion at that point.  After synthesis, life certainly will need a new one.

Says who you say?  Says Dictionary.com (which was listed earlier) if you want them to incorporate the stuff about XNA, then by all means let them know.  If you think EDI/GETH have this XNA, that is news to me, but an interesting possiblity.  Though, to my statement where I say the synthetics do not have DNA will still be true, as X does not equal D.

Also, quoting someone does not mean equating yourself to, the quote was relevant.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 29 avril 2012 - 01:45 .

[Cypher_CS]

That's a very good reply Aquillas, and your personal objection is a worthy one, IMO.
Problem is, most people object on contents of the endings, not their delivery or lack of more choices (well, most people in this topic at least).

Also, I tend to agree with Polaris about him being allegorical.
He's clearly taking a pause to find an analogy to better understand what "framework" means.
DNA is something we all think we can understand on a very basic "double helix that controls life" kind of way.

[Volc19]

So, what, is everyone akin to the Collectors now? Vital processes replaced by tech in order to be improved? The idea behind Synthesis is basically that, to allow our progress to halt so that the singularity doesn't occur. After meeting with Saren, and seeing the Collectors, how could anyone see synthesis as a valid solution? Mordin would be ashamed.

And I can't even begin to think of the implications this has for the Geth and EDI. How does something inorganic become more 'organic'? Do they spontaneously grow organs? Skin? Do they bleed? The entire thing is ridiculous. In the end, we have a Galaxy full of Collectors and Geth-with-hair-blood-and-teeth abominations.

[Cypher_CS]

Read above on this page.

[Dark Penitant]

Frankly, I don't even care if synthesis was purely beneficial with no downsides. Bodily Sovereignty still applies, and Shep had absolutely no right to make that decision.

[Taboo]

This topic is still around? Fun times.

Anyway the lack of information is what makes the endings so repugnant to me. I have no idea what I'm doing and in what capacity.

[Taboo]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

DOES THIS RUSTLE YOUR JIMMIES?


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

Thats hard to read, whats the word after brave new world?  Didn't see 1984.  More importanly no date, and shepard is alive is written at the top which is only in the renegade option I believe.  I honestly can't believe people have read as much into this as they have.

The word after Brave New World is symbolic. SYMBOLIC. 

How in God's name did this get approved?

Did Mr. Hudson and Mr. Walters actually read the book?

[Cypher_CS]

Is there any reason you guys are assuming the "brave new world" writing there is a reference to the book, instead of just countless other occurrences of this phrase?

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Synthesis....reminds me of how the reavers were created.

Not really.
The Reavers were created by adverse reaction to a basic neurotoxin. Nothing more.

*walloftextsnip*

The morality behind it's use...."Let's force this upon people so we can all coexist peacefully"

[Cobra's_back]

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.

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

Sadly, public schools have taken out books that have political content. The books cannot be assigned to all students as required reading.  Students are allowed to read them on their own and write summaries for them.

I had my son read "The Giver" by Lois Lowry when he was age 11. It was a good book for a young mind to understand the dangers of “loss of free will” in exchange for a “perceived utopia”.

[nicethugbert]

To say that Synthesis would alter a person's personality and therefore their free will runs counter to what actually happened to Shepard and the Quarians. Shepard was loaded with synthetics and owes his life to having them. The Geth are helping the Quarian's immune systems adapt to Rannoch's environment.

[Taboo]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Is there any reason you guys are assuming the "brave new world" writing there is a reference to the book, instead of just countless other occurrences of this phrase?

When it occurs it is used in reference to an ending with a perceived Utopia I do. That is not a hard inference to make.

I'm creating a new topic tomorrow, discussing dark endings and this perceived notion that Bioware has used it to create something edgy, cool and new.

They haven't and people are truly unware of the monstrosities that exist out there. I'm going to crush it under the heel of the perpetual boot.

[Taboo]

nicethugbert wrote...

To say that Synthesis would alter a person's personality and therefore their free will runs counter to what actually happened to Shepard and the Quarians. Shepard was loaded with synthetics and owes his life to having them. The Geth are helping the Quarian's immune systems adapt to Rannoch's environment.

They are impants. We are talking about adding synthetic information to the coding of DNA itself.

[Cobra's_back]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Is there any reason you guys are assuming the "brave new world" writing there is a reference to the book, instead of just countless other occurrences of this phrase?

When it occurs it is used in reference to an ending with a perceived Utopia I do. That is not a hard inference to make.

I'm creating a new topic tomorrow, discussing dark endings and this perceived notion that Bioware has used it to create something edgy, cool and new.

They haven't and people are truly unware of the monstrosities that exist out there. I'm going to crush it under the heel of the perpetual boot.

I'm looking forward to your new post. I enjoy reading them.

[Taboo]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Is there any reason you guys are assuming the "brave new world" writing there is a reference to the book, instead of just countless other occurrences of this phrase?

When it occurs it is used in reference to an ending with a perceived Utopia I do. That is not a hard inference to make.

I'm creating a new topic tomorrow, discussing dark endings and this perceived notion that Bioware has used it to create something edgy, cool and new.

They haven't and people are truly unware of the monstrosities that exist out there. I'm going to crush it under the heel of the perpetual boot.

I'm looking forward to your new post. I enjoy reading them.

I'll only be able to reveal topical information about some things because talking about them in detal would...........ruslte some jimmies.

Not to say that I can't throw nightmare fuel at the people who think the ending is great because it's an attempt at being hip and dark.

Cinema has it's very own private hell and the films that exist there have gotten people killed.

Is the BSN ready?

[Shaigunjoe]

Taboo-XX wrote...

This topic is still around? Fun times.

Anyway the lack of information is what makes the endings so repugnant to me. I have no idea what I'm doing and in what capacity.

Honestly, wouldn't you rather this one be around that a lot of the troll posts that go up and constantly get bumps?  You know what I learned here?  There is such a thing as synthetic typeish form of DNA, thats cool!

[Dark Penitant]

nicethugbert wrote...

To say that Synthesis would alter a person's personality and therefore their free will runs counter to what actually happened to Shepard and the Quarians. Shepard was loaded with synthetics and owes his life to having them. The Geth are helping the Quarian's immune systems adapt to Rannoch's environment.

So? Doesn't matter, it's altering others' bodies without their permission. 

[Taboo]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

This topic is still around? Fun times.

Anyway the lack of information is what makes the endings so repugnant to me. I have no idea what I'm doing and in what capacity.

Honestly, wouldn't you rather this one be around that a lot of the troll posts that go up and constantly get bumps?  You know what I learned here?  There is such a thing as synthetic typeish form of DNA, thats cool!

Oh yeah. Even though I've disagreed with you and other people I've had quite a lot of fun in this thread. I much prefer this to the continuous "Star Child sucks" threads. It's far, far more exciting to partake in these threads. As such I hope that Bioware is paying attention to threads like this because it's where all the concrete criticism comes from!

As long as people want to read what I have to say and discuss it in a mature manner I'll keep making these threads.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 29 avril 2012 - 06:34 .

[Shaigunjoe]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

DOES THIS RUSTLE YOUR JIMMIES?


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

Thats hard to read, whats the word after brave new world?  Didn't see 1984.  More importanly no date, and shepard is alive is written at the top which is only in the renegade option I believe.  I honestly can't believe people have read as much into this as they have.

The word after Brave New World is symbolic. SYMBOLIC. 

How in God's name did this get approved?

Did Mr. Hudson and Mr. Walters actually read the book?

I feel like the page is just bait of some kind, when you right stuff in a notebook as part of the creative process, sometimes thought streams just pour onto paper.  If you are supporting the double find adventure on kickstarter, Time Schafer had a pretty nice post about what goes into his notebook.

The App even said it was from early development of ME3, so its hard to say how this is even manifested in the game world.

Though if taken literally, I can definitly see how each ending creates a 'brave new world', it is brave in the sense they cast off the reliance on reaper tech while simutanously looking at a future that for the first time in possibly millions years will not be predetermined by a predictable cycle.

[Cypher_CS]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Synthesis....reminds me of how the reavers were created.

Not really.
The Reavers were created by adverse reaction to a basic neurotoxin. Nothing more.

*walloftextsnip*

The morality behind it's use...."Let's force this upon people so we can all coexist peacefully"

Ah, fair point.

[Comguard2]

Concerning the creation of synthetics by the synthesised:

Maybe the metals are synthesised, too? So every new synthetic would automaticaly be...synthetised?

Argh, it's so....argh....

[Kyle Kabanya]

@ Moderators

You need to let everyone that works in Bioware studios to retconn the entire ending.
1. We don't understand it
2. You don't understand it
3. Picking a color is ****ing stupid

Get rid of synthesis and control ending. TIM wanted to control the reapers, why stop and shoot him if shep just turns around and chooses control. Makes no sense because shep never showed any signs of being power hungry or indoctrinated.

After TIM dies, the ending should just be a destroy ending. Depending on the player's assests and EMS rating should detemine what unfolds throughout the ending.
1. Anderson lives/dies
2. Crucible may/may not backfire and destroy everything
3. How many races are killed/survive

Then the big decision (Council fate, Collector base) is whether or not to let Harbginer live or die. Kill him for paragon because the reapers are completely over. Or let live to study for technology, but risk of indoctrination or continuation of reapers would be offscene afterthoughts of the game,

These decisions could spark a new trilogy.