336 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

MisterJB wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
Don't worry little Timmy, your mom and dad were turned into husks, but it's okay. Now you can be a husk too!

Do tell, where are the Husks here? I see a human and a synthetic who seems to be acting more alive than before.

I see 12 iChildren in their future. :facepalm: However, this solution on a galactic scale violates several laws of quantum mechanics (not just one or two). Hence it is pure

It might work for Joker and EDI, but then it might not work for some others --Javik might commit suicide. Still the Catalyst dodges the question when Shepard asks "Then there will be peace?" with the answer "The cycle will end. Sythesis is the final evolution of life, but we need each other to make it happen." It says nothing about peace.

Now Control is interesting.

S: "So the Illusive Man was right after all."
C: "Yes, but he could never have taken control, because we already controlled him."
S: "But I can?"
C: "You will die. You will control us, but you will lose everything you have."
S: "But the reapers will obey me?"
C: "Yes."

The Catalyst initially says "I control the Reapers." Since Shepard
will now control the Reapers, Shepard will become the new Catalyst, and the Reapers will obey Shepard. The cutscene also shows the starchild going away.

Note: I'm not looking at it at "aww those poor enslaved reapers." I'm looking at it from a more practical standpoint of "Hey, you made a ****ing mess of things, killed a bunch of people, ruined a lot of lives. Now clean up your mess."

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 01 mai 2012 - 07:53 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

adneate wrote...
The Catalyst's problem is not our problem and the catalyst provides precisely no information to make this problem supercede the pending destruction of all advanced life in the galaxy by the reapers. His "argument" also makes a series of assumption about the nature of AI that I would say make these hypothetical beings sounds less like AIs and more like logic based computer programs.

Given that we don't care about or are able to understand or relate to the catalyst's hypothetical problem that still leaves destroy as the most efficent and effective means of solving our problems. I don't see why anyone would care what the Catalyst wants since his argument is so weak, I'm not expecting Socrates but I expect more than "This hypothetical situation that has never happened will happen and it will be bad, therefore you should do what I say". That's less of an argument and more prophecy, fitting that it's apocalyptic in nature I suppose.

Do we really need the Catalyst to tell us that war and destruction is the ultimate fate of any civilization? It will happen for organics because we are, at our cores, selfish and greedy. And once Synthetics surpasse us, they will have no more consideration for us than we do for the less intelligent species we share Earth with.
And this concerns us since it is our survival at stake and we may be dooming ourselves by destroying the Reapers.

Also, while I acknowledge that the Catalyst does not present argument and that is one of the biggest faults with the ending, I think it is very much possible that it has witnessed a synthetic race destroying multiple worlds and it decided to intervene.

You don't have the right to change the way the galaxy works. Period.

Consequently, you have no right to destroy the Reapers.

No right to destroy the race of merciless homocidal hybrid robot things that want to kill everyone in this cycle, and then kill everyone in the subsequent cycles possibly for all eternity? 

Why not? 

[Ieldra]

Sauruz wrote...
Please don't turn this into a 'Stop racism against the Lovecraftian horror creatures' thread.

The ending of ME3 shows us they aren't that. They are "servants of the pattern" who acted under the Catalyst's control. I find it appealing that I need not destroy them, since apart from having been enemies, they're quite fascinating.

[frylock23]

Optimystic_X wrote...

"Right" is an ethical luxury. The Turians had no "right" to use the genophage either, but it was that or die at the time.

But I'm sure the codex shows how the Turians were really all defeatists and could have beaten the Krogan conventionally without ethical problems.

Interesting you bring this up. I happen to believe that there are some rights you hold simply by virtue of existing and thus I fought tooth and nail to cure the genophage. If you were being consistent, then you didn't bother trying to cure the genophage.

Which route did you take?

If they can think at all, they're not husks. Thinking also means they have a chance of restoring those who don't like Synthesis. (Especially if Synthesis gives everyone more brainpower to apply to the problem.)

Since the ending scene with the Normandy makes no sense at all, I have a hard time taking anyone seriously when they attempt to use it to justify anything about any of the ending choices. I can't even use it to validate my hope that Star Brat is a lying twit when it claims that EDI and the Geth will die because it makes no sense at all except as an idealized repesentation of what we all hope will happen as our Shepard is either dying or bleeding out in the rubble.

And I count two "ifs" in that last statement. That's a lot of speculation on your part. "if" and "if."

[The Night Mammoth]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

The plot says nothing. A few characters have some obviously forced dialogue, repeatedly telling you that it's impossible. 

You know, largely the same cast of characters that say similar things about several events throughout the story, and look where we are now? 

If everything a character said was true we'd never have found the Mu Relay. 

1) Saren found the Mu Relay, and he is a character. Oh wait, everything he says is apparently wrong, so there must be no Mu Relay.

Projecting. 

Therefore ignored. 

2) So is the Codex infallible too? It still says that the statues on Ilos are Prothean. Javik says they're the Inusannon. Clearly he doesn't know what he's talking about, the Codex is always right!!11!one.

Yes, obviously. It's a representation of in-universe knowledge. 

[Sepharih]

Optimystic_X wrote...
The Swastika once meant something different too. If you want to avoid dragging such baggage into discussions, use different terms.

And whether or not individuals personally like nanotechnology does not change the fact that it has objective benefits

Eugenics can have objective benefits also, that's not the point.
And No, i'm not going to use a term other than eugenics just becasue you don't like it.  Eugenics is an accurate word to describe what you are arguing for.

Modifié par Sepharih, 01 mai 2012 - 07:54 .

[MisterJB]

jlb524 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
Do we really need the Catalyst to tell us that war and destruction is the ultimate fate of any civilization? It will happen for organics because we are, at our cores, selfish and greedy. 

How exactly does 'Synthesis' remove this issue?

I did not propose it would, only that the Catalyst's assumption of inevitable extinction is accurate.
Wheter or not I believe Synthesis will create an utopia is a different issue.

[M Hedonist]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Sauruz wrote...
Please don't turn this into a 'Stop racism against the Lovecraftian horror creatures' thread.

The ending of ME3 shows us they aren't that. They are "servants of the pattern" who acted under the Catalyst's control. I find it appealing that I need not destroy them, since apart from having been enemies, they're quite fascinating.

Yes. Studying them sure can't have any negative effects at all. Just ask those cerberus scientist aboard that dead reaper you visit in Mass Effect 2.
They simply are Lovecraftian horror creatures. Even after their death they keep indoctrinating people. We have to assume they cannot stop themselves from doing that. Nothing the Catalyst says changes that fact.

[The Night Mammoth]

MisterJB wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
Do we really need the Catalyst to tell us that war and destruction is the ultimate fate of any civilization? It will happen for organics because we are, at our cores, selfish and greedy. 

How exactly does 'Synthesis' remove this issue?

I did not propose it would, only that the Catalyst's assumption of inevitable extinction is accurate.

I hope you aren't talking about the 'synthetics will always destroy all organic life' problem the Catalyst presents, because it's far from an accurate assumption. 

[HiddenKING]

Synthesis doesn't sound at all like what Saren was sayin.

The Collectors are more in line with Saren's vision.

[cyclopsgd]

Lizardviking wrote...

Or they forgot Saren's character.

The Forgot the entire first game

[Ieldra]

The Night Mammoth wrote...
No right to destroy the race of merciless homocidal hybrid robot things that want to kill everyone in this cycle, and then kill everyone in the subsequent cycles possibly for all eternity? Why not?

The original claim was "you have no right to change the way the galaxy works." The Reapers have determined the way the galaxy works for a billion years. Thus, I have no right to destroy them, because that would change the way the galaxy works.

On a more serious note: because you have other options to deal with the threat.

From a strict viewpoint of deontological morality (which I don't share, btw), if there are other options than to destroy them, you should take those, as long as the threat is removed. From the same viewpoint, you do not have the right to impose a physical change on an intelligent self-aware lifeform, regardless of the benefits.

From a consquentialist viewpoint (which is my viewpoint), you may be justified in destroying the Reapers in order to minimize the risk of the cycle restarting again. But you may also be justified in imposing that physical change, if the projected results are beneficial enough on a large scale. If the negative effects are negligible - as Joker's and EDI's appearance suggests, matters of principle have no bearing on your decision.

Large-scale decisions have to be made with a consequentialist mindset. Every government does that, because if they wouldn't nothing would ever get done.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 mai 2012 - 08:02 .

[frylock23]

MisterJB wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
Do we really need the Catalyst to tell us that war and destruction is the ultimate fate of any civilization? It will happen for organics because we are, at our cores, selfish and greedy. 

How exactly does 'Synthesis' remove this issue?

I did not propose it would, only that the Catalyst's assumption of inevitable extinction is accurate.
Wheter or not I believe Synthesis will create an utopia is a different issue.

So, if Synthesis won't remove our flaws but it will just make us superhuman in the process, I see no reason why we need to do it. It won't actually solve anything, and your reasons for doing it are just the same selfish and greedy reasons you say we need synthesis to save us from, and yet, you say you don't actually see how it would help ...

Riiiight.

In fact, synthesis just might help ourselves kill everyone faster.

[frylock23]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...
No right to destroy the race of merciless homocidal hybrid robot things that want to kill everyone in this cycle, and then kill everyone in the subsequent cycles possibly for all eternity? Why not?

The original claim was "you have no right to change the way the galaxy works." The Reapers have determined the way the galaxy works for a billion years. Thus, I have no right to destroy them, because that would change the way the galaxy works.

On a more serious note: because you have other options to deal with the threat.

From a strict viewpoint of deontological morality (which I don't share, btw), if there are other options than to destroy them, you should take those, as long as the threat is removed. From the same viewpoint, you do not have the right to impose a physical change on an intelligent self-aware lifeform, regardless of the benefits.

From a consquentialist viewpoint (which is my viewpoint), you may be justified in destroying the Reapers in order to minimize the risk of the cycle restarting again. But you may also be justified in imposing that physical change, if the projected results are beneficial enough on a large scale. If the negative effects are negligible - as Joker's and EDI's appearance suggests, matters of principle have no bearing on your decision.

Large-scale decisions have to be made with a consequentialist mindset. Every government does that, because if they wouldn't nothing would ever get done.

You do understand that each Reaper represents an entire group of gelled up beings who were forcibly murdered in order to power it somehow? Each one is a livng horror show. It would be something like a zombie apocalypse happening on Earth and you decide to join a group that advocates that we shouldn't extreminate the zombies because it would unspeakably unethical and cruel to them.

[Ieldra]

@all:
I have tried to deal with most of the practical issues concerning Synthesis in my Synthesis thread. Just in case people still don't know it. That scenario is what I base my judgment on. I reject the "genetic rewrite" not because I don't like it, but because it's nonsense. There can be no "hybrid DNA" because being a synthetic is not a physical trait, or rather, it is a physical trait only by accident. In the end, it is a matter of perspective, and my scenario posits a physical trait which is liable to change peoples' perspectives. That will eventually solve "the problem".

[M Hedonist]

There's no point to discuss this any further once people bring in speculative 'best possibles' that turn everybody into super heroes (no strings attached, of course) or the crime of 'genocide' against the Lovecraftian horror creatures. This thread has derailed into pure insanity and has become more ridiculous than the endings themselves, but that's a fate every Synthesis thread shares.
/thread

Modifié par Sauruz, 01 mai 2012 - 08:13 .

[PsyrenY]

frylock23 wrote...

Interesting you bring this up. I happen to believe that there are some rights you hold simply by virtue of existing and thus I fought tooth and nail to cure the genophage. If you were being consistent, then you didn't bother trying to cure the genophage.

Which route did you take?

To quote Dr. Mordin Solus: "Never changed mind. Genophage proper decision at time. New circumstances necessitate course correction."

It's possible to advocate an unethical position when one's back is against the wall, and correct the problem later.

Since the ending scene with the Normandy makes no sense at all, I have a hard time taking anyone seriously when they attempt to use it to justify anything about any of the ending choices.

You DO know what husks look like, don't you? They've only been in all 3 games 

 

 
And I count two "ifs" in that last statement. That's a lot of speculation on your part. "if" and "if."

Of course I'm speculating. I never said I wasn't. But I'll take a chance at good over certain murder.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 01 mai 2012 - 08:12 .

[MisterJB]

adneate wrote...
That is strictly impossible he's speaking of a synthetic race so advanced that they literally consume life by the planet load and nothing is capable of stopping them and it's presented as a universal truth of AI life. So this makes the scenario impossible since that AI race is unstoppable and any other AI race that was as powerful as them would think and reason exactly like them.

Therefore the Catalyst cannot have seen this hypothetical event happen, which makes his argument just a prophecy and no more logical than me saying the End is nigh because the internet will be self-aware and kill us with nukes. Eventually. Given an infinite timescale we could make any prediction and not be wrong.

Why impossible? It depends on the amount of power of the organics compared to the synthetics. The geth could salt a thousand worlds and they would seem unstopable to the quarians.
Thus, it is possible the first Reaper was the first organic advanced civilization and the Catalyst was the Shepard of their time.

[PsyrenY]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Yes, obviously. It's a representation of in-universe knowledge. 

And authoritative characters are not?

Hackett's the highest-ranking officer in the entire Navy. Ditto Victus for the Turians. You knew that, right? They are rather clearly both mouthpieces for the authors.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 01 mai 2012 - 08:11 .

[Ieldra]

@frylock23:
That's just the thing: I don't see the cosmic horror show. According to Legion in ME2 and implied by Sovereign in ME1, the Reapers contain the collective minds of the Reaperized species, most likely enslaved by the Catalyst. Why the hell would I want to destroy them if there are other alternatives?

Of course, if that cosmic horror show is what YOU see, then it's perfectly consistent to destroy the Reapers. It's just not what I see.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 mai 2012 - 08:12 .

[M Hedonist]

@Optimystic_X: Btw... you still didn't tell me how a) 'people can become cyborgs if they want' logically leads to 'everybody becomes a cyborg', but I don't expect that anymore tbh.

[PsyrenY]

Sauruz wrote...

@Optimystic_X: Btw... you still didn't tell me how a) 'people can become cyborgs if they want' logically leads to 'everybody becomes a cyborg', but I don't expect that anymore tbh.

I would assume whole races, like the Quarians did, to incorporate cybernetic enhancements at some point once the technology becomes available.

For the Quarians, necessity obviated the expense, but for others the cost/benefit makes it impractical. But as technology improves, that metric will shift.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 01 mai 2012 - 08:14 .

[Meltemph]

Ya... people are doing everything in there power to make their ending not having any real consequences to them and only want unicorns and puppies. They would rather create a head-canon that is completely non-falsifiable in order to protect themselves from the destroy ending. In the destroy ending we know of the bad consequences, with control and synthesis, it allows people to pretend time that there are no bad consequences, since you know nothing of the choices.

They would rather take a risk on this hypothetical galaxy that their unknowable choices turn the galaxy into a personal eugenics or "god like" galaxy.

[M Hedonist]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@frylock23:
That's just the thing: I don't see the cosmic horror show. According to Legion in ME2 and implied by Sovereign in ME1, the Reapers contain the collective minds of the Reaperized species, most likely enslaved by the Catalyst. Why the hell would I want to destroy them if there are other alternatives?

Of course, if that cosmic horror show is what YOU see, then it's perfectly consistent to destroy the Reapers. It's just not what I see.

"Listen to yourself... you're indoctrinated!"

[MisterJB]

frylock23 wrote...
So, if Synthesis won't remove our flaws but it will just make us superhuman in the process, I see no reason why we need to do it. It won't actually solve anything, and your reasons for doing it are just the same selfish and greedy reasons you say we need synthesis to save us from, and yet, you say you don't actually see how it would help ...

Riiiight.

In fact, synthesis just might help ourselves kill everyone faster.

Why do we live if not to improve ourselves? It is not selfish to seek improvement that will benefit all organic, not just a selected few that can afford.
And we are always at risk of killing each other. Should we return to the Dark Ages when our weapons were less destructive because of it?