Dark Penitant wrote...
^^Consent has everything to do with it; assumptions aside, it's still altering others' bodies without their explicit permission. Hence, it violates bodily sovereignty and consent, and is therefore arguably the worst choice you could possibly make.
Cypher_CS wrote...
Penitant, I'm saying that Consent is violated in all choices.
There's no point in singling it out for Synthesis only.
Cypher_CS wrote...
It's about a warning of the future. Maybe.
Modifié par Taboo-XX, 01 mai 2012 - 04:12 .
stevefox1200 wrote...
At this point with all the arguing over what and is not consent and what the endings do and do not mean I am wishing that a 4th "shoot your self in the head because you want nothing to do with this mess" ending was in the game
Cypher_CS wrote...
TookYoCookies wrote...
iakus wrote...
What conflict with synthetics? I've got an army of geth fighting alongside their creators! The Normandy's copilot is synthetic! Why should the galaxy be forced to rewrite their DNA over an assertion that hasn't proven to be true? An assertion given by a being which claims to control the race that seems to like turning organics into cybernetic zombies?
And even if there was some truth in the Catalyst's asertion, again, how would Synthesis change anything? All you're doing is removing the terms "organic" and "synthetic". Great so now conflict will be "hybrid versus hybrid"
^^^^^ this is a smart man.
Not at all.
As been stated time and time again - the problem with Order over Chaos is not one of "rocks, bronze, industry, computers, AI and poof they turn against you".
It's not linear. It's not a case of soon as you develop an AI it will kill you.
It's a case of sooner or later, even if you strike peace with AI and all is well with the world, there will be some AI or AI faction that will decide that Order must take precendece.
Is it the cold hard truth? Maybe not. Probably not.
Is this a concept that has been explored in many, many Sci Fi creations? Most definitely.
Hell, even Isaac Asimov, father of Robotics, with his Four Laws for Robotics - even he had a theme of Order over Chaos. Hell, the whole of the Foundation novels are based on that. And even though it is done by a Human, it is insitgated by the Zeroeth law of Robotics! Again, AI.
Cypher_CS wrote...
IRT Hawk,
I'll try to find the article.
But:
1. It's not about ending wars. Cultural difference still exist. It's only about ending the cycle of AI killing Organics.
But I do concede the point that we can't know how it is achieved with Synthesis. Or how it might contribute.
2. I know what the article says. But can you take a leap of speculation - speculative sci-fi - into a slightly more futuristic scenario where these "typewriters" allow you to pick desired traits (see Phenotype, want Phenotype, know how to Copy it and Do - kind of a dumbed down explanation) between species?
Again, speculative fiction here. Completely.
When it comes down to it, human love is nothing more than a programmed response, a chemical survival program. That doesn't make it less meaningful for us, but it means that it's just as real - or irreal - as any programmed response in a synthetic. And don't get me started about souls. We can't even agree among ourselves if there is such a thing. For me, "soul" is a figurative term. It doesn't describe anything real but by using it, we assert certain basic rights we claim a self-aware being has which "soulless" machines do not have. In the end, if something acts self-aware, we have to assume it is self-aware, though we may be able to confirm that synthetics have emotion-analogues (EDI says she is not free from motivations) by some equivalent of a brain scan, so that we can say they're at least not lying.Shaigunjoe wrote...
TheJiveDJ wrote...
Gill Kaiser wrote...
Mr. Gamble seems to find it a confusing concept that we already considered synthetics as equally valid forms of life. The organic and synthetic lifeform dichotomy is entirely fabricated, and the solution proposed is atrociously immoral. Why must organics and synthetics be merged into one? They're already life, and they each have a place in the cosmos. Synthesis takes away their future and everything they could become through the natural progession of a sentient culture.
I'd care to assert that whomever wrote the ending had underestimated just how progressive BioWare's fanbase is. It's as if they'd assumed we all had an underlying hatred for synthetic life, or that people would never accept that life may manifest itself in a non-organic species. It's as if they were banking on the fact that we'd all go YEAAHH TAKE THAT YOU SYNTHETIC BASTARDS. I think they forgot what universe they were writing for (this isn't Terminator). This is a part of what made Mass Effect so beautiful; we could take progressive ideas like synthetic life seriously and in a mature manner. Honestly it speaks volumes about the intelligence and maturity of BioWare's fanbase.
The thing that makes me wonder about synthetic life, is at what point would us, in real life, consider an AI to be alive (definition of biological life aside for the moment). Whenever ever I hear EDI or Legion talk about love or soul, we really have only their assurences. There was always something in the back of my mind that said 'why can't they just be programmed to say these things'. They both have reaper code, and reapers are very good at deception.
Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 mai 2012 - 09:21 .
Ieldra2 wrote...
When it comes down to it, human love is nothing more than a programmed response, a chemical survival program. That doesn't make it less meaningful for us, but it means that it's just as real - or irreal - as any programmed response in a synthetic. And don't get me started about souls. We can't even agree among ourselves if there is such a thing. For me, "soul" is a figurative term. It doesn't describe anything real but by using it, we assert certain basic rights we claim a self-aware being has which "soulless" machines do not have. In the end, if something acts self-aware, we have to assume it is self-aware, though we may be able to confirm that synthetics have emotion-analogues (EDI says she is not free from motivations) by some equivalent of a brain scan, so that we can say they're at least not lying.
@Gill Kaiser:
Where did Mike Gamble hint at that? I think the game makes it pretty clear that synthetics are real life with EDI and Legion, and even more if you make peace on Rannoch. I don't the writers were expecting most players would reject that. At least the writers of the Rannoch plot and of EDI didn't. Sure, siding with synthetics is sometimes painted Renegade, but that's because Paragon tends to affirm a transcendent quality of organic life, which you need to reject if you are to accept synthetic life as equal.
Modifié par Hawk227, 02 mai 2012 - 09:06 .
Hawk227 wrote...
Ieldra2 wrote...
When it comes down to it, human love is nothing more than a programmed response, a chemical survival program. That doesn't make it less meaningful for us, but it means that it's just as real - or irreal - as any programmed response in a synthetic. And don't get me started about souls. We can't even agree among ourselves if there is such a thing. For me, "soul" is a figurative term. It doesn't describe anything real but by using it, we assert certain basic rights we claim a self-aware being has which "soulless" machines do not have. In the end, if something acts self-aware, we have to assume it is self-aware, though we may be able to confirm that synthetics have emotion-analogues (EDI says she is not free from motivations) by some equivalent of a brain scan, so that we can say they're at least not lying.
Oddly enough, I agree completely. I still hate synthesis.@Gill Kaiser:
Where did Mike Gamble hint at that? I think the game makes it pretty clear that synthetics are real life with EDI and Legion, and even more if you make peace on Rannoch. I don't the writers were expecting most players would reject that. At least the writers of the Rannoch plot and of EDI didn't. Sure, siding with synthetics is sometimes painted Renegade, but that's because Paragon tends to affirm a transcendent quality of organic life, which you need to reject if you are to accept synthetic life as equal.
He said it on Twitter. Someone responded to his "After synthesis there will be only life" tweet by saying there was always only life, and he responded by asking if EDI was alive.
Taboo-XX wrote...
Well. This topic is still alive I see.
Hee hee.
Cypher_CS wrote...
Have you noticed your bit of circular logic there?
You haven't proven she has a life, yet you use her willingness to risk her life as proof of it...
But yeah, there's definitely an exploration of EDI's... humanization or whatever.
However, not sure that motivation for self preservation is proof of life.
Need to dig a bit deeper here.
Modifié par TookYoCookies, 04 mai 2012 - 02:55 .
Retour en haut
