The Angry One wrote...
No there is not. Evolution is a reactionary process. Adaptation to enviroment. There is no "plan" and no "end" or "pinnacle".
The logical conclusion of evolution is the end of evolution. If you don't understand this, you don't understand the science of evolution, or the mathematics that describe it (game theory).
You can assume all you like, the implications are there all the same.
Implications based off your assumption of what synthesis is. I at least admit I'm making assumptions. Please stop spouting your opinions based of your less probable assumptions as facts.
I refuse. I will use logic, as I've always used in Mass Effect. It's held up before, with suitable versimilitude.
You clearly need a class in formal logic. Your conclsusions rest on assumptions, the truth of which we may never know. My assumptions are at least more likely, considering they rest on the axiom "Casey Hudson isn't a closet na-zi"
It's not poorly explained, the concept is poor. Period. Nothing about this "new life" excludes the possibility of war, or the possibility of creating AIs. Pure machines will still be more efficient.
The concept is poor if we only have currently understood science to go off of. Given our understanding of the universe is a joke in the scheme of things, the concept that perhaps there will one day be a way to create life that is both synthetic and organic, which is the pinnacle of evolution isn't that much more farfetched than any other idea outside our understanding of the universe.
Again, assume what you want. The Catalyst is a genocidal murderer. This is a fact in the game.
The Catalyst basis it's actions on a philosophy of intolerance and racism, and Shepard is forced to accept this philosophy, one of those options - synthesis - being the embodiment of it.
I don't know what to believe about the ones who wrote and approved it. Maybe they just didn't think it through, but the disturbing implications are there.
He's a genocidal murderer. He's not racist or intolerant if you take what he says as the truth. Again, I argue Casey Hudson read the Singularity a month before the game went gold and thought "oh, shiiit." If you can't understand the argument, it goes something like this:
1. Eventually we will create machines that are smarter than us.
2. Those machines will be able to create machines smarter than them.
3. The result will be an exponential growth in technological development, leading to the end of technological development (i.e. the "pinnacle" of intellectual evolution).
4. At some point, those machines will be so much smarter than us, their concept of 'life' will be incompatible with ours. They will see no meaningful reason for our continued existence, and will thus directly or indirectly wipe us out.
5. In order to stop this inevitable outcome, a sentient race, who had apparently witnessed this numerous times, decided to step in and save organic life from itself.
Do I think this is the logical outcome of life? No. But is it somewhat believable? Sure. If you can't admit the concept of machines so much smarter than us deciding our life is meaningless in the grand scheme of things is a valid concept, then you clearly haven't noticed how most humans treat animals.
Modifié par nuculerman, 27 avril 2012 - 10:34 .
Retour en haut
