336 réponses à ce sujet

[lordnyx1]

MisterJB wrote...

Sauruz wrote...
You have to realize what my point is... that there is a strong majority of people who simply dislike the idea of being turned into a cyborg against their will...

May I ask why?
Let's assume the best possible. All of Paul Grayson's superhuman abilties without the loss of free will and individuality.
Why would you oppose this?

Choice dear chap as living thinking individuals we like to chose what happens to our body/self and suddenly cyber is a very clear violation.

Modifié par lordnyx1, 01 mai 2012 - 07:26 .

[Tom Lehrer]

MisterJB wrote...

Sauruz wrote...
You have to realize what my point is... that there is a strong majority of people who simply dislike the idea of being turned into a cyborg against their will...

May I ask why?
Let's assume the best possible. All of Paul Grayson's superhuman abilties without the loss of free will and individuality.
Why would you oppose this?

A nerd in his moms basement learns how to hack the cyborg people. Guess what happens next.

[MisterJB]

Tom Lehrer wrote...
Sythesis destoryed the gene pool though

On what basis do you claim this?
Humans and chimps share 98% of our DNA but we are still very different.

and because everyone is now  at apex of evolution breeding is no longer needed because everyone is perfect. There is no more need to think or devlope new technology eaither because they are so perfect now.

This notion has no merit. Even after Synthesis, organics won't be able to...say...travel through the stars without a space ship. Limitations will still exist.

[MisterJB]

lordnyx1 wrote...
Choice dear chap as living thinking individuals we like to chose what happens to our body/self and suddenly cyber is a very clear violation.

Maybe so but you will have been improved.
Everything that you were has been perfected due to Synthesis. So, why does it matter if you did not chose it? Your life is still better than it were.

[The Night Mammoth]

MisterJB wrote...

lordnyx1 wrote...
Choice dear chap as living thinking individuals we like to chose what happens to our body/self and suddenly cyber is a very clear violation.

Maybe so but you will have been improved.
Everything that you were has been perfected due to Synthesis. So, why does it matter if you did not chose it? Your life is still better than it were.

I don't see any improvements. 

I see changes, with potentially bothering effects. 

[M Hedonist]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

You have to realize what my point is... that there is a strong majority of people who simply dislike the idea of being turned into a cyborg against their will...
Oh god I don't even know why I bother anymore.

Must I agree with your position? Whatever happened to the diversity you claim to support so much? 
As for whether you guys are a "strong majority," I don't agree with that either.

Don't you even understand what you're talking about? Synthesis forces your opinion onto everybody. That's the point. I'm talking about the position of the people saying 'I don't want to be turned into a cyborg' from which there are many here.

[Taboo]

MisterJB wrote...

Tom Lehrer wrote...
Sythesis destoryed the gene pool though

On what basis do you claim this?
Humans and chimps share 98% of our DNA but we are still very different.

and because everyone is now  at apex of evolution breeding is no longer needed because everyone is perfect. There is no more need to think or devlope new technology eaither because they are so perfect now.

This notion has no merit. Even after Synthesis, organics won't be able to...say...travel through the stars without a space ship. Limitations will still exist.

You do realize that DNA no longer exists in the same format? That it COMBINES synthetics and organics?

You don't have DNA in the same format. You essentially add an S to the GTCA combination.

NEW LIFEFORM.

[Tom Lehrer]

MisterJB wrote...

lordnyx1 wrote...
Choice dear chap as living thinking individuals we like to chose what happens to our body/self and suddenly cyber is a very clear violation.

Maybe so but you will have been improved.
Everything that you were has been perfected due to Synthesis. So, why does it matter if you did not chose it? Your life is still better than it were.

Synthesis violates who I am as a person. Having been 'perfected' is a load of crap. My idea of prefection is different from yours and being pumped full of Reaper tech is not my idea of prefection espicaly if it is forced on me.

It is my body and I will do with it what I damn well please.

[PsyrenY]

The Angry One wrote...

The codex says otherwise. Hackett is a defeatist.

You're certainly free to headcanon that way, but the plot says otherwise.

The Angry One wrote... 
Because it totally works that way.

What's stopping them?

The Angry One wrote... 
So tell me, why does this option preserve the Reapers? If the cycle is truly gone, aren't they obsolete?

Yes, and that's the point. He even tells you "my solution won't work anymore." He is already resigned to giving up on the Reaper thing, provided you pick one of the new choices provided by the device that changed him.

The Angry One wrote... 
Because they're still options, and maybe even the idiot that Shepard has suddenly become would grow suspicious if synthesis were presented alone.

Suspicion means nothing if you can't act on it. He even enables you to reach the non-Synthesis options. Arguing that he really, really doesn't want you to pick them is nonsensical.

The Angry One wrote... 
Notice how he goes through destroy and control, acting negatively with each then reaches synthesis, the "perfect" solution.

Emphasis mine. Going through them at all is counterproductive if deception is your goal. Why give your enemy a 66% chance at victory when you can give them 0%? It makes no sense.

The Angry One wrote... 
Call Hackett on the radio. Get some more opinions.

This I agree with you on - Shepard should have tried to reach out for advice, if only to be blocked and establish his isolation.

As a sure end by the enemy.

An enemy with no reason to lie, yes.

The Angry One wrote... 
It violates them to their very core. Even if the Reapers won, they would not affect that many on such a scale.

Some might feel violated, yes. But all would be alive.

The Angry One wrote... 
Again, scale. Making impactful decisions does not give anyone the right to proceed to alter the galaxy itself at the behest of the enemy.

"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.

The Angry One wrote... 
As I said earlier, this has to do with what people may think is happening to them.

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.)

[adneate]

MisterJB wrote...
Let's assume the best possible. All of Paul Grayson's superhuman abilties without the loss of free will and individuality.
Why would you oppose this?

For the same reason many people wouldn't want to be immortal, the human condition is a direct result of the human experience. We can not fundamentally and radically alter basic principles of our life without fundamentally altering who we are and in that lose what it is to be human. For some that lose is a price too high to pay.

Would you say we should forcibly intergrate the Mennonites into modern society? After all their primitive lifestyle is far inferior to our own why do they oppose us? Why should we tolerate their backwardness?

[frylock23]

MisterJB wrote...

Sauruz wrote...
You have to realize what my point is... that there is a strong majority of people who simply dislike the idea of being turned into a cyborg against their will...

May I ask why?
Let's assume the best possible. All of Paul Grayson's superhuman abilties without the loss of free will and individuality.
Why would you oppose this?

Because no one is asking me if I want it. Simple as that.

[PsyrenY]

Sauruz wrote...

Don't you even understand what you're talking about? Synthesis forces your opinion onto everybody. That's the point. I'm talking about the position of the people saying 'I don't want to be turned into a cyborg' from which there are many here.

I do understand your point. I'm merely asking "so?" As I've said repeatedly, Shepard has acted unilaterally before. The scale is wider but not the stakes.

[MisterJB]

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.

[Cyberfrog81]

It's amazing that Control is still an option after the Catalyst thing flat out admits that they had TIM completely fooled. Why would you ever take the chance?

As for Synthesis, even ignoring (or forgetting, as I had done) Saren's vision and that it doesn't make sense, it's something you have no right to do. It's a crime against sentience.

Because if it really is the "final solution" to the perceived problem, you would have to mess with the minds of these "new" creatures; there is more to the "new" Joker than freaky eyes. And he doesn't freak out? THAT ONLY PROVES THE POINT. It's not Joker anymore. Enjoy your "victory", Shepard.

[Taboo]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

Don't you even understand what you're talking about? Synthesis forces your opinion onto everybody. That's the point. I'm talking about the position of the people saying 'I don't want to be turned into a cyborg' from which there are many here.

I do understand your point. I'm merely asking "so?" As I've said repeatedly, Shepard has acted unilaterally before. The scale is wider but not the stakes.

I can't even................

This is what Marlon Brando meant in Apocalypse Now when he said "The horror.......the horror.".

[Ieldra]

*sigh* This thread again?

Yes, Saren had a vision of the melding of man and machine. THAT AS SUCH IS NOT BAD! He was indoctrinated to believe the Reapers would make his vision real. THAT is bad. But it does not mean his vision was anything the Reapers wanted.

And just to be clear:
*Synthesis does not destroy free will (which doesn't exist, but I take it in the spirit it was meant)
*Synthesis does not turn anyone into a husk, not even your standard image of a cyborg. The change is almost invisible.
*Synthesis does not destroy diversity. It does not make "everything the same". To say that is equal to saying life on Earth is all the same because it's based on the same chemistry.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 mai 2012 - 07:44 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

The codex says otherwise. Hackett is a defeatist.

You're certainly free to headcanon that way, but the plot says otherwise.

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. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 01 mai 2012 - 07:41 .

[M Hedonist]

MisterJB wrote...

Sauruz wrote...
You have to realize what my point is... that there is a strong majority of people who simply dislike the idea of being turned into a cyborg against their will...

May I ask why?
Let's assume the best possible. All of Paul Grayson's superhuman abilties without the loss of free will and individuality.
Why would you oppose this?

That hypothesis is completely irrelevant as it is, as you say, 'the best possible'. There is no reason to assume that is what happens. Or that there won't be any downsides at all. Or that the reapers will just abandon us and never bother us again. You might as well just ask me if I would want to have super powers or have a pegasus to ride to work to. Your vision of Synthesis is completely speculative and delusional.

You might as well just go assume that 'Destruction' has no down sides either and the Catalyst just lied to you when he said it would kill the Geth. Or that you can gain complete control of the reapers in 'Control' and just instantly order every reaper to fly directly into the next sun with no civilian casualties at all.

Modifié par Sauruz, 01 mai 2012 - 07:44 .

[Taboo]

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.

[adneate]

MisterJB wrote...
I think it is very much possible that it has witnessed a synthetic race destroying multiple worlds and it decided to intervene.

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.

[Ieldra]

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.

Shepard has that right because he stands at the fulcrum of events. He must make a decision that changes how the galaxy works. That one of those options affects organics' physical makeup is of no more or less consequence than the death of the Reapers.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 mai 2012 - 07:48 .

[jlb524]

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?

Modifié par jlb524, 01 mai 2012 - 07:46 .

[M Hedonist]

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.

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

[JBPBRC]

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?

Space magic!

[PsyrenY]

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.

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.