897 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

And yet another fundamentalist who refuses to accept that other people play their Shepards differently from theirs....

Kyle, you and others like you sound more and more like the fanatical Cerberus apologists in the ME2 forums.

My Shepard never wanted to destroy the Reapers if that was possible without letting the harvesting continue. I'm very glad I am not forced to destroy them, and resent any attempt to take MY choice away from me. There are few enough choices left that make a real difference.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 29 avril 2012 - 07:01 .

[Dark Penitant]

Fair enough, Ieldra, and I agree, though the two that don't kill the reapers are either slavery or violation of bodily sovereignty, and hence choice, so...

[Cobra's_back]

Dark Penitant wrote...

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.

Excellent point.

[Kyle Kabanya]

Ieldra2 wrote...

And yet another fundamentalist who refuses to accept that other people play their Shepards differently from theirs....

Kyle, you and others like you sound more and more like the fanatical Cerberus apologists in the ME2 forums.

My Shepard never wanted to destroy the Reapers if that was possible without letting the harvesting continue. I'm very glad I am not forced to destroy them, and resent any attempt to take MY choice away from me. There are few enough choices left that make a real difference.

I hate to dampen your mood, but everyone's Shep, male or female, have the same objective in all the games and everyone is ultimately the same. It doesn't matter if you in the first game or second ever got the idea of controlling was what you wanted to do.

Shepard in the first two games always had the idea of stopping the reapers was to destroy them. I've played multiple playthroughs, and never in the first two does shep ever get the idea of controlling them or becoming like them. Shep was always concerned with delaying/destroying the reapers.

There are no different playthroughs. Decisions affect outcomes, but at the core of the game, no one is different in their playthroughs. Every shep is a hero reguardless of morality, every shep wants to stop the reapers.

Your choice at the end of the game is pointless, because synthesis and control have NEVER EVER been considered by shep. They were presented so abruptly, that it was pointless to play the first two games. And "take your choice away," those choices should never have been presented unless there was a ME2.5 showing shep starting to question whether or not destroying the reapers was the only choice.

[Hawk227]

Cypher_CS 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.

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.

 

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.




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.

IanPolaris wrote...

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

-Polaris

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.

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.

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

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).

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

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]

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.

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. 

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

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

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).

So a couple things.

1) the catalyst says it is the final evolution of life. "Final" has a pretty clear connotation and yes that connotation is an "end to evolution". What is the mechanism for this? Does reproduction stop and everything is now immortal? That would result in the end of evolution.

2) I read the XNA article, and while it's interesting, I'm not entirely sure how it's pertinent. The changes they made were pretty insignificant. The sugar base (D, R, or X that precedes NA) is chemically only important in connecting the nucleotide monomers into a larger nucleic acid polymer. Furthermore, they made fairly minor changes to the sugars, adding or removing a carbon atom. The backbone is still held together by the same C-O-C bonds. With the bases (A,C,T,G,U) and the phosphate group intact, it would still be functionally almost the same. They certainly didn't make entirely new trancription proteins to transcribe the XNA => DNA => XNA (that would be a more impressive accomplishment than changing the sugar) so they used or slightly modified the cells existing framework. You could certainly coopt XNA as a storage device (you could with DNA too). This is cool, but's not synthesis. To me this is more like artificial sweeteners.

3) I wasn't saying he was wrong about synthesis changing personality, I was saying he was shooting too low. Minor genetic changes could result in dramatic phenotypic changes. The chemistry of the brain could be completely different. A fundamental change of the brain chemistry wouldn't just change our personality (it would) but it would make us unrecognizable as anything faintly human.

4) While I agree that synthetic does not equal mechanic, the in game evidence certainly implies this. On Tali's loyalty mission, the admirals tell you that the geth created more of themselves using parts of the ship. When you talk to Legion in ME2 he says that organic software is based on chemistry while Geth software is simply electric (can't remember exact quote) and they communicate at the speed of light. An organic(chemical) based system could not do this. I suppose it's possible that EDI's code is written in nucleicacids (although, that would be hugely inefficient) but we aren't given any reason to think that. I also don't recall any in-game mention of an organic processor. The implication of the geth uploading themselves is that they do so to a machine CPU. You've latched onto the implausible because it's not explicitly impossible. Furthermore, the implication of the catalyst is that EDI and the geth AREN'T partially organic. That's the "point" of synthesis: Bridging the gap between organic and synthetic. By making all life part Organic and Part synthetic, the cycle ends (in peace?).

5) The catalyst's use of the word DNA could be allegorical. I'm not sure. I didn't take it as such because the game (think Mordin in ME2) describes DNA pretty literally in all other circumstances. The reality is that DNA is the framework for life as we know it. How do you replace it.... allegorically? The whole thing sounds silly to me.

6) Saying synthesis ends in homogenization isn't an assumption so much as an inference. The catalyst says that the organics and synthetics cannot coexist. It implies that their fundamental differences result in conflict. Synthesis may or may not solve this problem (the catalyst doesn't answer). Either it eliminates those differences (homogenization), or it does not solve the problem. The implication that this diversity necessitates conflict is abhorrent and counter to the theme of the rest of the trilogy.

Modifié par Hawk227, 29 avril 2012 - 08:07 .

[Archereon]

I can never choose anything OTHER than Control. The human race is doomed to extinction in destroy along with the geth and the quarians, and probably a lot of other people.

In destroy, Citadel (quite literally) falls on Earth and flattens everything under it, eezo is released and the resulting poisoning renders Earth uninhabitable. The galaxy proceeds to enter an age of grim darkness where there is only war.

Synthesis makes no sense, in addition to all the problems mentioned here. Plus, the reapers DEFINITELY win in that ending, whereas in Control, they only maybe win. (everyone's assuming Shepard is going to go evil/the reapers will come back. That seems likely, but it isn't guaranteed.)

[Vox Draco]

Archereon wrote...
In destroy, Citadel (quite literally) falls on Earth and flattens everything under it, eezo is released and the resulting poisoning renders Earth uninhabitable. The galaxy proceeds to enter an age of grim darkness where there is only war.

Maybe, maybe not...the Earth as a planet is already doomed anyway, so why bother? At least the Reapers would be gone for good, and the galaxy can rebuild on their own terms this time.

Both synthesis and control have the reapers still around..and this doesn't make me very happy to think of...and there are other reasons as well why my Shepards won't choose control or synthesis

It is all up to our own headcanon, really...every ending has pros and cons to it, but in my interpretation destroy is the least risky one, as you can predict the future, as grim as you may see it, more clearly, while the others are based upon the wishful thinking the Reapers can be controlled or that they will no longer care about the galaxy after everyone is huskified...I mean everyone has new DNA...whatever...

[Dark Penitant]

At least in destroy you can make new Geth-like AIs, if possible. Shep lives, yadda yadda yadda.
Control's slavery, and synthesis is completely repugnant from a moral standpoint, and stupid from a stylistic one.

[Taboo]

Archereon wrote...

I can never choose anything OTHER than Control. The human race is doomed to extinction in destroy along with the geth and the quarians, and probably a lot of other people.

In destroy, Citadel (quite literally) falls on Earth and flattens everything under it, eezo is released and the resulting poisoning renders Earth uninhabitable. The galaxy proceeds to enter an age of grim darkness where there is only war.

Synthesis makes no sense, in addition to all the problems mentioned here. Plus, the reapers DEFINITELY win in that ending, whereas in Control, they only maybe win. (everyone's assuming Shepard is going to go evil/the reapers will come back. That seems likely, but it isn't guaranteed.)

Yeah, the uh, citadel exploding has apparently been retconned. Also depending on your EMS what happens is quite different.

You cannot reach a consensus about anything yet because you do not have enough information. Synthesis just happens to have the biggest problem.

It's also of interest to probably note that Xbox Live and the PSN will probably not Bioware release DLC that just adds cutscenes and cinematics as DLC. Soooooo......

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 29 avril 2012 - 09:31 .

[Taboo]

Bump. If only for the hope of attracting more discussion....

[nitefyre410]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Archereon wrote...

I can never choose anything OTHER than Control. The human race is doomed to extinction in destroy along with the geth and the quarians, and probably a lot of other people.

In destroy, Citadel (quite literally) falls on Earth and flattens everything under it, eezo is released and the resulting poisoning renders Earth uninhabitable. The galaxy proceeds to enter an age of grim darkness where there is only war.

Synthesis makes no sense, in addition to all the problems mentioned here. Plus, the reapers DEFINITELY win in that ending, whereas in Control, they only maybe win. (everyone's assuming Shepard is going to go evil/the reapers will come back. That seems likely, but it isn't guaranteed.)

Yeah, the uh, citadel exploding has apparently been retconned. Also depending on your EMS what happens is quite different.

You cannot reach a consensus about anything yet because you do not have enough information. Synthesis just happens to have the biggest problem.

It's also of interest to probably note that Xbox Live and the PSN will probably not Bioware release DLC that just adds cutscenes and cinematics as DLC. Soooooo......

 

Bioware will just release it as a  Patch update for the game most likely to get around that...

[MakeMineMako]

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?

[alienatedflea]

Taboo-XX wrote...

 A user posed a question to Michael Gamble last night and I was struck at how bizzare and vague the answer was.

Synthesis is even worse than Control... What if some people would rather choose death than be a half-machine?

but the idea is there is no concept of machine or organic anymore. There is only life.

I literally made this face.



I was awe struck. I then proceeded to laugh so hard I had to get up and leave my computer. This is clearly Mr. Gamble's opinion but given Bioware's inherent favor towards Synthesis it only made me question the rationale behind the very idea behind the concept they created. This is a failure in artistry. The artist must ALWAYS have the ability to be asked questions and Bioware didn't think we would have any. Well......

What Synthesis essentially proposes to me is a bastardized Utopia. One created by forcibly removing the things that make the species unique, their diversity. One person was given this choice.......ONE. No one asked the humans, the asari, the krogan, the geth about what THEY wanted. We are given topical information by a Star Child who proposes this is the only solution to this problem. Shepard has no option to even discuss anything. Are you serious Bioware? By removing the undesirable elements we can achieve peace? Do you understand the political undertones in this? 


At what point in development was it deemed the best solution to rewrite the way the universe has functioned for billions and billions of years?

At what point was it deemed ethical for one person to decide what was best for the universe? To play god?

How do you merge synthetic and organics?

How do they reproduce now? Are the usual elements no longer favorable? Are sperm and eggs obsolete?

Why is Joker still limping? His condition doesn't seem to have benefitted by being turned into something else.

Plants are now shown sentient now too. Can I no longer eat vegetables? Fruit?

Do I have to eat? Sleep?

To what extreme is the synthesis? Do I still have free will?

To what degree are the original synthetics affected? Do they grow hair and real feelings? Skin?

Joker's hat is green as well. Are synthetic fibers affected as well? Can I no longer wear certain types of pants because they might find me in them obejctionable?


When I attend the Cannes film festival I expect a good degree of discussion because the films are so cerebral. But I know the director has a problem when the narrative is literally torn apart to get answers. This isn't speculation. It's an abject failure without any sort of information............


I'm reminded of an image from The Wall. The goosestepping hammers marching towards a "goal" at any cost.

"HAMMER! HAMMER!"

Blah...if people always need to something to complain about, since they dont understand the endings they **** about..I mean complain about the options left at the ending...Synthesis is not bad...but when you have idiots screaming that it is bad, eventually others will believe as well...quite a sad sight to be honest...

[Bill Casey]

No, Synthesis is beyond ****ing offensive...

[Aaleel]

They may as well have called the choice Eugenics. It was wrong on so many levels to me I didn't even consider or play the ending again to even see what would happen.

[Axialbloom]

I find it very disturbing that Bioware considers the single most evil act ever commited to be the 'best' ending.

[d-boy15]

I'm okay with synthasis even I never choose it but I will be very pissed if
EC clarification turn out to be like this...

destroy - and then 50,000 years later, all organic life are wipe out.
control - and then 50,000 years later, the cycle is continued again.
synthasis - after 50,000 a galaxy become heaven, everyone happy.

what's the point of different ending if there is only one best ending?

Modifié par d-boy15, 30 avril 2012 - 01:52 .

[stevefox1200]

After reading all of this I have found one common truth

"If you can't even explain how it works and its not magic or god (I'm going to assume that the Starkid is Jesus) than it should not be in the plot"

[Taboo]

alienatedflea wrote...

Blah...if people always need to something to complain about, since they dont understand the endings they **** about..I mean complain about the options left at the ending...Synthesis is not bad...but when you have idiots screaming that it is bad, eventually others will believe as well...quite a sad sight to be honest...

A particularly disingenuous assertion you've made. The lack of information in the endings is what has created this debacle. Had whoever wrote the end section taken his or her time a great majority of this problem wouldn't be here.

To critique a piece of art is common. To defend a piece of art is common. To have sixty thousand people complain about a piece of art is unheard of. It has never happened before. What we have is sociological problem of an enormous magnitude. Bioware did not respond properly and are now paying for it.

I did not start the fire but I tried to fight it.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 30 avril 2012 - 02:23 .

[Dark Penitant]

Taboo-XX wrote...

alienatedflea wrote...

Blah...if people always need to something to complain about, since they dont understand the endings they **** about..I mean complain about the options left at the ending...Synthesis is not bad...but when you have idiots screaming that it is bad, eventually others will believe as well...quite a sad sight to be honest...

A particularly disingenuous assertion you've made. The lack of information in the endings is what has created this debacle. Had whoever wrote the end section taken his or her time a great majority of this problem wouldn't be here.

To critique a piece of art is common. To defend a piece of art is common. To have sixty thousand people complain about a piece of art is unheard of. It has never happened before. What we have is sociological problem of an enormous magnitude. Bioware did not respond properly and are now paying for it.

I did not start the fire but I tried to fight it.

it's not even sociologial, though I entirely agree, but I find it completely and utterly appalling that what is the functional rape of every single sentient being in the galaxy is at all appropriate. 

[Taboo]

You'll hear about true horrors in the thread I'm creating tomorrow. About people who were killed for their art. About the original god child. The original meta-participation.

And possibly the lingerie model.

I just need to prepare my notes........

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 30 avril 2012 - 02:29 .

[Cypher_CS]

Kyle Kabanya wrote...

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.

Maybe YOUR Shepard never showed any signs of being power hungry....
Which is the major point of playing ME in the first place. YOURs is different than MINE.

Hawk227 wrote...

1) the catalyst says it is the final evolution of life. "Final" has a pretty clear connotation and yes that connotation is an "end to evolution". What is the mechanism for this? Does reproduction stop and everything is now immortal? That would result in the end of evolution. 

That's the point, final evolution does NOT equal end of.
And I've been over this about a dozen times now.
Did Evolution end when ****** Erectus was "formed"? No, it continued to evolve within that stage of evolution.
Did Evolution end when ****** Sapiens was "formed"? No, it continued and still continues to evolve within this stage of evolution.
Does evolution end with ****** Digitalis or ****** Synthesizer, as per Catalyst's description? No, it can still continue to evolve within that stage of evolution.
No where is it said that it's the end of reproduction.

More importantly - again - Catalyst is not the All Knowning Narrator of this story.
According to his limited vision, his limited imagination, his lack of divergent thinking, he sees no next stage past said ****** Digitalis or whatever. Must we take it at face value?
If the God Emperor Leto Atreides II said that Humanity will end in 5000 Years, should we have believed him? Or should we have taken what we know about his Prescience and inablity to see past Duncan Idaho as a sign that maybe his vision is limited (by his own design, mind you)?

Hawk227 wrote... 
2) I read the XNA article, and while it's interesting, I'm not entirely sure how it's pertinent. The changes they made were pretty insignificant. The sugar base (D, R, or X that precedes NA) is chemically only important in connecting the nucleotide monomers into a larger nucleic acid polymer. Furthermore, they made fairly minor changes to the sugars, adding or removing a carbon atom. The backbone is still held together by the same C-O-C bonds. With the bases (A,C,T,G,U) and the phosphate group intact, it would still be functionally almost the same. They certainly didn't make entirely new trancription proteins to transcribe the XNA => DNA => XNA (that would be a more impressive accomplishment than changing the sugar) so they used or slightly modified the cells existing framework. You could certainly coopt XNA as a storage device (you could with DNA too). This is cool, but's not synthesis. To me this is more like artificial sweeteners.

Err... I don't know why it's blacked out in the quote by they clearly state that they have, in fact, created these copying devices:
"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. "

Hawk227 wrote... 

3) I wasn't saying he was wrong about synthesis changing personality, I was saying he was shooting too low. Minor genetic changes could result in dramatic phenotypic changes. The chemistry of the brain could be completely different. A fundamental change of the brain chemistry wouldn't just change our personality (it would) but it would make us unrecognizable as anything faintly human. 

True.
But, again, the DNA change might not be literal DNA change.
And if it is, and it's something similar to that XNA (only more sci-fi-ish), then it still works the same, but has the ability to interact with other types of XNA or DNA or RNA.
Theoretically, a strand of XNA can have the identical data carried by a strand of DNA - hence NOT changing the chemistry of the brain.

Hawk227 wrote... 

4) While I agree that synthetic does not equal mechanic, the in game evidence certainly implies this. On Tali's loyalty mission, the admirals tell you that the geth created more of themselves using parts of the ship. When you talk to Legion in ME2 he says that organic software is based on chemistry while Geth software is simply electric (can't remember exact quote) and they communicate at the speed of light. An organic(chemical) based system could not do this. I suppose it's possible that EDI's code is written in nucleicacids (although, that would be hugely inefficient) but we aren't given any reason to think that. I also don't recall any in-game mention of an organic processor. The implication of the geth uploading themselves is that they do so to a machine CPU. You've latched onto the implausible because it's not explicitly impossible. Furthermore, the implication of the catalyst is that EDI and the geth AREN'T partially organic. That's the "point" of synthesis: Bridging the gap between organic and synthetic. By making all life part Organic and Part synthetic, the cycle ends (in peace?).

Again, that was given as examples. Yes, as you say, as possibilities. But only to make a point, in response to a few other statements earlier in the thread.

Also, the thing about Geth using ship parts - that's the Geth Platforms, the soldiers, not the actual AIs.
Yes, the point is to bridge the gap.
I'm giving an example of how that gap might be bridged, if you provide man-machine interfaces on a much more intimate level.

Hawk227 wrote... 

5) The catalyst's use of the word DNA could be allegorical. I'm not sure. I didn't take it as such because the game (think Mordin in ME2) describes DNA pretty literally in all other circumstances. The reality is that DNA is the framework for life as we know it. How do you replace it.... allegorically? The whole thing sounds silly to me.

If anything, the whole talk about DNA previously only stands as a basis for a layman to understand "DNA" allegorically better than what a "new framework for life" means in the abstract.
Again, the delivery - that Smell the Fart moment there - implies allegory. Or at least analogy.

Hawk227 wrote... 

6) Saying synthesis ends in homogenization isn't an assumption so much as an inference. The catalyst says that the organics and synthetics cannot coexist. It implies that their fundamental differences result in conflict. Synthesis may or may not solve this problem (the catalyst doesn't answer). Either it eliminates those differences (homogenization), or it does not solve the problem. The implication that this diversity necessitates conflict is abhorrent and counter to the theme of the rest of the trilogy.

First of all, the Stargazer at the end talks about all life being different. He talks about different stars and planets and each planet may be being a home to a completely different race.
So we know, based on that cutscenes, that diversity exists. Different races exist. There's no homogenization.

Secondly... yeah, I agree that it doesn't seem to solve the problem. Unless the problem is, again, stated badly or limited by the Catalyst's own explanation.
All throughout the series we don't actually get an answer as to why AI wants to impose order on chaos.

I have, however, propose a different theory - either in this thread or another.
After so many Cycles, and the limited capacity for creative thinking the Catalyst has, it doesn't understand that it in itself has become the very thing it was trying to solve. A self fullfilling prophecy, if you will.
Hence the reason for this way out - maybe it finally realized: "My solution is crap. Here's my gift, hope you can do better".
In a nutshell.

Modifié par Cypher_CS, 30 avril 2012 - 05:35 .

[Hawk227]

[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...

[quote]Hawk227 wrote...

1) the catalyst says it is the final evolution of life. "Final" has a pretty clear connotation and yes that connotation is an "end to evolution". What is the mechanism for this? Does reproduction stop and everything is now immortal? That would result in the end of evolution. 

[/quote]

That's the point, final evolution does NOT equal end of.
And I've been over this about a dozen times now.
Did Evolution end when ****** Erectus was "formed"? No, it continued to evolve within that stage of evolution.
Did Evolution end when ****** Sapiens was "formed"? No, it continued and still continues to evolve within this stage of evolution.
Does evolution end with ****** Digitalis or ****** Synthesizer, as per Catalyst's description? No, it can still continue to evolve within that stage of evolution.
No where is it said that it's the end of reproduction.

More importantly - again - Catalyst is not the All Knowning Narrator of this story.
According to his limited vision, his limited imagination, his lack of divergent thinking, he sees no next stage past said ****** Digitalis or whatever. Must we take it at face value?
If the God Emperor Leto Atreides II said that Humanity will end in 5000 Years, should we have believed him? Or should we have taken what we know about his Prescience and inablity to see past Duncan Idaho as a sign that maybe his vision is limited (by his own design, mind you)? [/quote]

Your first point is ridiculous. He explicitly states that it is the final evolution of life. Evolution didn't end after ****** Erectus, because that wasn't the final evolution of life. You seem to acknowledge that the idea of a final evolution is preposterous (unless we became immortal and no longer reproduced), which is good. I'm not sure why you think the existence of ****** Sapiens despite the previous incarnation of ****** erectus discounts the catalyst explicitly stating that it is the final evolution of life. If we continued to evolve within the stage of ****** synthesis, then after some period of time, we would no longer be ****** synthesis.

As for your second point... I never really got anything out of Dune 4 - 7. I loved the first 3 though. Also, the catalyst is untrustworty. I agree. I'm not sure how this can possibly support synthesis. Considering Sovereign said Reapers were the pinnacle of evolution, if you can't trust the Catalyst he may be just sugarcoating synthesis making everyone husks.


[quote]
[quote]Hawk227 wrote... 
2) I read the XNA article, and while it's interesting, I'm not entirely sure how it's pertinent. The changes they made were pretty insignificant. The sugar base (D, R, or X that precedes NA) is chemically only important in connecting the nucleotide monomers into a larger nucleic acid polymer. Furthermore, they made fairly minor changes to the sugars, adding or removing a carbon atom. The backbone is still held together by the same C-O-C bonds. With the bases (A,C,T,G,U) and the phosphate group intact, it would still be functionally almost the same. They certainly didn't make entirely new trancription proteins to transcribe the XNA => DNA => XNA (that would be a more impressive accomplishment than changing the sugar) so they used or slightly modified the cells existing framework. You could certainly coopt XNA as a storage device (you could with DNA too). This is cool, but's not synthesis. To me this is more like artificial sweeteners.
[/quote]
Err... I don't know why it's blacked out in the quote by they clearly state that they have, in fact, created these copying devices:
"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. " [/quote]

I spent some time looking for the actual paper, but its behind a paywall. I think its important to note that the article says that quote. Articles are written by laymen, for laymen. Articles like this regularly have misinterpretations or oversimplifications. That one quote doesn't tell me anything. Without access to the journal article I can't say what happened. But the idea of creating an entirely new RNA polymerase (the enzyme that would turns DNA into mRNA, or DNA into XNA) analog would be much more impressive than replacing a functionally irrelevant portion of DNA. It's much more likely that they made a minute change to the active site, or no change was required at all.

Again, the portion changed to make DNA into XNA is chemically irrelevant to higher processes.  It is simply the glue that holds the strand together. The Bases (ACTGU) are what encode data, and the phosphate is what allows DNA to be stored or opened in the cell.

[quote][quote]Hawk227 wrote... 

3) I wasn't saying he was wrong about synthesis changing personality, I was saying he was shooting too low. Minor genetic changes could result in dramatic phenotypic changes. The chemistry of the brain could be completely different. A fundamental change of the brain chemistry wouldn't just change our personality (it would) but it would make us unrecognizable as anything faintly human. 
[/quote]

True.
But, again, the DNA change might not be literal DNA change.
And if it is, and it's something similar to that XNA (only more sci-fi-ish), then it still works the same, but has the ability to interact with other types of XNA or DNA or RNA.
Theoretically, a strand of XNA can have the identical data carried by a strand of DNA - hence NOT changing the chemistry of the brain.[/quote]

If it still works the same (like XNA would) and carry the same data, and not change the chemistry of the brain (or anything else), then there would be no synthesis. There would be no functional change at all. Either there is a change (and we cease to be recognizable) or nothing happens. When muddling with something as basic as DNA, that's how it goes.

[quote][quote]Hawk227 wrote... 

4) While I agree that synthetic does not equal mechanic, the in game evidence certainly implies this. On Tali's loyalty mission, the admirals tell you that the geth created more of themselves using parts of the ship. When you talk to Legion in ME2 he says that organic software is based on chemistry while Geth software is simply electric (can't remember exact quote) and they communicate at the speed of light. An organic(chemical) based system could not do this. I suppose it's possible that EDI's code is written in nucleicacids (although, that would be hugely inefficient) but we aren't given any reason to think that. I also don't recall any in-game mention of an organic processor. The implication of the geth uploading themselves is that they do so to a machine CPU. You've latched onto the implausible because it's not explicitly impossible. Furthermore, the implication of the catalyst is that EDI and the geth AREN'T partially organic. That's the "point" of synthesis: Bridging the gap between organic and synthetic. By making all life part Organic and Part synthetic, the cycle ends (in peace?).
[/quote]
Again, that was given as examples. Yes, as you say, as possibilities. But only to make a point, in response to a few other statements earlier in the thread.

Also, the thing about Geth using ship parts - that's the Geth Platforms, the soldiers, not the actual AIs.
Yes, the point is to bridge the gap.
I'm giving an example of how that gap might be bridged, if you provide man-machine interfaces on a much more intimate level.
[/quote]

I was just making it clear that in this case, synthetic does equal mechanic. Legion tells us so, and the simple "need" for synthesis tells us this too. If they were already hybrids, they wouldn't need to be hybridized.

[quote][quote]Hawk227 wrote... 

5) The catalyst's use of the word DNA could be allegorical. I'm not sure. I didn't take it as such because the game (think Mordin in ME2) describes DNA pretty literally in all other circumstances. The reality is that DNA is the framework for life as we know it. How do you replace it.... allegorically? The whole thing sounds silly to me.
[/quote]
If anything, the whole talk about DNA previously only stands as a basis for a layman to understand "DNA" allegorically better than what a "new framework for life" means in the abstract.
Again, the delivery - that Smell the Fart moment there - implies allegory. Or at least analogy.[/quote]

I understand why you think its allegorical. I don't think it is. My point is that the actual framework for life right now really is DNA. It encodes everything that makes life possible. How do you replace it? Any way you did it would result in an absolutely fundamental change in what life is. We would cease to be us in any recognizable way (physically or visually).
[quote]
[quote]Hawk227 wrote... 

6) Saying synthesis ends in homogenization isn't an assumption so much as an inference. The catalyst says that the organics and synthetics cannot coexist. It implies that their fundamental differences result in conflict. Synthesis may or may not solve this problem (the catalyst doesn't answer). Either it eliminates those differences (homogenization), or it does not solve the problem. The implication that this diversity necessitates conflict is abhorrent and counter to the theme of the rest of the trilogy.
[/quote]
First of all, the Stargazer at the end talks about all life being different. He talks about different stars and planets and each planet may be being a home to a completely different race.
So we know, based on that cutscenes, that diversity exists. Different races exist. There's no homogenization.

Secondly... yeah, I agree that it doesn't seem to solve the problem. Unless the problem is, again, stated badly or limited by the Catalyst's own explanation.
All throughout the series we don't actually get an answer as to why AI wants to impose order on chaos.

I have, however, propose a different theory - either in this thread or another.
After so many Cycles, and the limited capacity for creative thinking the Catalyst has, it doesn't understand that it in itself has become the very thing it was trying to solve. A self fullfilling prophecy, if you will.
Hence the reason for this way out - maybe it finally realized: "My solution is crap. Here's my gift, hope you can do better".
In a nutshell.

[/quote]

First, the stargazer clip is identical no matter which choice you make. It's evidence only of Buzz Aldrin's poor voice acting skills. I think it is simply an allegory about imagination and curiosity.

Secondly, I'm not sure what part of synthesis is a gift. Mechanically it makes no sense (green space magic). It's morally abhorrent. And we seem to agree it doesn't solve the "problem" (of which the only example is the reapers themselves). If it was saying, "here, you try" why wouldn't it just take the reapers and go home?

Look, the reality is the whole thing is ridiculous. If you think the transhumanism theme is poetic (and can look past the possible eugenics undertones), well, that's your prerogative. But science has no role to play in this. As has been stated before, the mechanism for this change is nothing short of divine.

Modifié par Hawk227, 30 avril 2012 - 09:04 .

[nicethugbert]

Dark Penitant wrote...

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. 

So is blowing up a mass relay which Shepard does in Arrival and in all three endings in ME3.  Given that Shepard is about to kill a lot of people in the galaxy when he blows up all the relays, what should be the result?

Taboo-XX wrote...

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.

It's a hardware upgrade.  I see no evidence that it changes a person's personality or that it robs them of individuality.

Incidentally, all three endings in ME3 are the same type of ending as the one for Arrival.

Synthesis is the same choice that legion made, without consensus, for the Geth when he gave them individuality.  Yet, I don't see anyone complaining about that.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 30 avril 2012 - 09:16 .

[Cypher_CS]

Hawk, I've come to trust io9 and their writers, for the most part, to be people who understand what they write about.
Hence the talk about the polymerase.

What I'm "proposing" here is that for the XNA theory or explanation, call it what you will, to be appropriate there was no fundamental change done except for the ability to transcribe data.
Instead of DNA and RNA and TNA (dumb name for Turian Nucleic Acids) and ANA (Asari Nucleic Acids) and BNA and so forth and so on (I'm being very simplistic on purpose here) - it all becomes XNA. Or it all gets those polymerase interfaces that are able to talk to each other.
Now - Joker retains his own encoded data. No data is being changed.
However, with the data being now translatable he can have sex with an Asari and conceive children (yes, I know it's BS, but you get the direction).
Or rather, test tube babies can now be formed from combining different encoded data.

Think of how Asari are procreating with other species (somehow mentally reading the desired phenotypes and incorporating them in the offspring) but on an actual biological level.

Too far out there?
Maybe, but even though the science might be waaaaaaaaay off, the fiction - or the logic, lacking a better word - works, I think.