1357 réponses à ce sujet

[OH-UP-THIS!]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

I don't defend strawmen.

sniped

Your evasion of the question shows me that you don't have an answer.

Why would I defend a point I never made?

So you think destroy does destroy more than just synthetic life?

When did he ever say that?

That's a great question....

On my way to this page, I read through the little discussion you two were having, and Balance is completely misunderstanding you.

What's to understand?

[ThinkIntegral]

ohupthis wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

OH FFS, did you not listen to that little idiot?   He clearly states "if you choose Destroy, you wipe out ALL synthetic life", IE: EDI,and the Geth, and "even you are part synthetic".

Starting to remember now? That is dissuasion/don't do it!!

And yet, despite that attempt to dissuade, it still lets you kill it...

SYMBOLICALLY, in your "dream-state", to BREAK INDOCTRINATION, so Shep can FIRE the Crucible, FOR REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh yes the solution for why it lets you is the thing you're trying to prove....

[balance5050]

Iconoclaste wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Can we assume that since the Catalyst is the oldest A.I. and controls the reapers, that it is quite possibly that it is also the most intelligent A.I.?

Now come on... Have you been reading the threads lately? Seems the Catalyst is not on par with a lawnmower for its logic.

Within the confines of the game though, he's been on the Citadel for a million years and is obviosly aware of outside happenings - ("I know you've thought about destroying us.") -, it never lets any competing organics get very far, and it CONTROLS THE REAPER.

Just based on those facts, was the goal to make the Catalyst seem like the "ultimate A.I."?

[balance5050]

ohupthis wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

I don't defend strawmen.

sniped

Your evasion of the question shows me that you don't have an answer.

Why would I defend a point I never made?

So you think destroy does destroy more than just synthetic life?

When did he ever say that?

That's a great question....

On my way to this page, I read through the little discussion you two were having, and Balance is completely misunderstanding you.

What's to understand?

No it's ok,
FatalX7.0 was wrongly assuming that CavScout wasn't a complete idiot.

[Iconoclaste]

balance5050 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Can we assume that since the Catalyst is the oldest A.I. and controls the reapers, that it is quite possibly that it is also the most intelligent A.I.?

Now come on... Have you been reading the threads lately? Seems the Catalyst is not on par with a lawnmower for its logic.

Within the confines of the game though, he's been on the Citadel for a million years and is obviosly aware of outside happenings - ("I know you've thought about destroying us.") -, it never lets any competing organics get very far, and it CONTROLS THE REAPER.

Just based on those facts, was the goal to make the Catalyst seem like the "ultimate A.I."?

The switch that turns my computer on / off is just a switch, yet it "controls" the computer. That doesn't make that switch a more sophisticated device than the computer.

[balance5050]

Iconoclaste wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Can we assume that since the Catalyst is the oldest A.I. and controls the reapers, that it is quite possibly that it is also the most intelligent A.I.?

Now come on... Have you been reading the threads lately? Seems the Catalyst is not on par with a lawnmower for its logic.

Within the confines of the game though, he's been on the Citadel for a million years and is obviosly aware of outside happenings - ("I know you've thought about destroying us.") -, it never lets any competing organics get very far, and it CONTROLS THE REAPER.

Just based on those facts, was the goal to make the Catalyst seem like the "ultimate A.I."?

The switch that turns my computer on / off is just a switch, yet it "controls" the computer. That doesn't make that switch a more sophisticated device than the computer.

So then he actually doesn't control them and just turns them on?

YOU control what your computer does not the on/off switch.

[CavScout]

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
It would have Shep pick something other than Destroy because it believes organics will create the synthetics that will wipe them out. It states it outright.

Why attach a hidden motive when none is needed?

why does it care? there is a hidden motive either way.

You do remember the story of ME, right?

[davishepard]

balance5050 wrote...

When life becomes sentient, it realises that it doesn't want to die. This si expressed when the Geth no longer wanted to shut down.

A. are you suggesting that the Reapers aren't sentient, that they have no desire to endure? Are you suggesting that the OLDEST AI isn't sentient?

B. The kid actually does react, he immediatly dissapears, fades away. In control and synthesis, however, it zooms in on his (catalyst) face and he smirks.

I am telling that neither the Reapers or the Catalyst show a particular will to "live". They seem to only have a "program", and follow it over anything else.

I didn't found a cutscene that shows the Catalyst after the Synthesis option is chosen, but I saw the Control ending, and he fades in that ending, after the zoom, no smirks though.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
A) You don't even have the courtesy to admit when you lied and were caught.
I don't answer/defend strawmen.

A) I didn't lie. I made a mistake. I'm sorry about that. But I wasn't lying. If i was lying, I wouldn't have linked to the thread that contained proof that what I said about you preferring synthesis was wrong. I clearly linked to it because I thought that you were defending it as the superior option. I've admitted that i made a mistake. I'm not a liar, but i'm not infallible.
again, why is it a strawman? it was just a question where a simple "no." would have sufficed.

A) You did lie. I mean, how can you claim you made a "mistake" yet were still able to link to proof of it? Which do you want?
It's a point I never made. The very definition of a straw man.

At this point the only thing you are proving is, that you are only breathing so you can ARGUE about anything.

you must not be an enjoyable companion, except when you're asleep.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
It would have Shep pick something other than Destroy because it believes organics will create the synthetics that will wipe them out. It states it outright.

Why attach a hidden motive when none is needed?

why does it care? there is a hidden motive either way.

You do remember the story of ME, right?

Yep.

[CavScout]

ohupthis wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
A) You don't even have the courtesy to admit when you lied and were caught.
I don't answer/defend strawmen.

A) I didn't lie. I made a mistake. I'm sorry about that. But I wasn't lying. If i was lying, I wouldn't have linked to the thread that contained proof that what I said about you preferring synthesis was wrong. I clearly linked to it because I thought that you were defending it as the superior option. I've admitted that i made a mistake. I'm not a liar, but i'm not infallible.
again, why is it a strawman? it was just a question where a simple "no." would have sufficed.

A) You did lie. I mean, how can you claim you made a "mistake" yet were still able to link to proof of it? Which do you want?
It's a point I never made. The very definition of a straw man.

At this point the only thing you are proving is, that you are only breathing so you can ARGUE about anything.

you must not be an enjoyable companion, except when you're asleep.

You are quite the troll. I'll give you props there.

[balance5050]

davishepard wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

When life becomes sentient, it realises that it doesn't want to die. This si expressed when the Geth no longer wanted to shut down.

A. are you suggesting that the Reapers aren't sentient, that they have no desire to endure? Are you suggesting that the OLDEST AI isn't sentient?

B. The kid actually does react, he immediatly dissapears, fades away. In control and synthesis, however, it zooms in on his (catalyst) face and he smirks.

I am telling that neither the Reapers or the Catalyst show a particular will to "live". They seem to only have a "program", and follow it over anything else.

I didn't found a cutscene that shows the Catalyst after the Synthesis option is chosen, but I saw the Control ending, and he fades in that ending, after the zoom, no smirks though.

If they have no will to live then they aren't sentient.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
A) You don't even have the courtesy to admit when you lied and were caught.
I don't answer/defend strawmen.

A) I didn't lie. I made a mistake. I'm sorry about that. But I wasn't lying. If i was lying, I wouldn't have linked to the thread that contained proof that what I said about you preferring synthesis was wrong. I clearly linked to it because I thought that you were defending it as the superior option. I've admitted that i made a mistake. I'm not a liar, but i'm not infallible.
again, why is it a strawman? it was just a question where a simple "no." would have sufficed.

A) You did lie. I mean, how can you claim you made a "mistake" yet were still able to link to proof of it? Which do you want?
It's a point I never made. The very definition of a straw man.

At this point the only thing you are proving is, that you are only breathing so you can ARGUE about anything.

you must not be an enjoyable companion, except when you're asleep.

You are quite the troll. I'll give you props there.

No u

[ev76]

Cavscout I'm not lying I'm just pointing out that you feel that destroying the reapers with low ems is obtuse, you said it yourself. You are the sensitive type that in order to break the cycle everyone must (other than the reapers) live. Yet low ems gives you the best outcome, you win. You might not like how you won but you won. Which is the best ending of the three options, everything else after the last choice is made is window dressing.

[Raiil]

Can we knock it off with the insults please?

Back on point; regarding the 'God Child is only offering solutions because it doesn't want to die', which may or may not be errornous because we don't know to what level, if any, that it has achieved sentience/sapience, it can also be argued that it offers control and synthesis as viable (re: not wanting the Reapers to win) alternatives that allow for the cycle to be broken.

Taken at face value- and there is no definitive proof that it's being anything but straightforward- control and synthesis also alleviate the 'symptoms' that cause the Reapers to need (by their own thought process) to return and cull civilisations. There is a chance, as likely as any, that the God Child is adjusting for new information and reacting accordingly. If the Reapers truly believe that they are salvation, then control and synthesis allows everyone to survive and the Reapers to leave/be controlled by a 'power' that has proven itself stronger than any other cycle (Shepard) or become part of the galactic fabric via synthesis.

[Iconoclaste]

balance5050 wrote...
So then he actually doesn't control them and just turns them on?

YOU control what your computer does not the on/off switch.

They mostly follow a "program", that gets changed with the arrival of the crucible. And the fact that I use the switch on my computer doesn't mean I tell him how to "shut down". I have no control on that. If I believe what Sovereign tells Shepard in ME1, then he has free will, and is "independant" to some amount.

[ThinkIntegral]

davishepard wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

When life becomes sentient, it realises that it doesn't want to die. This si expressed when the Geth no longer wanted to shut down.

A. are you suggesting that the Reapers aren't sentient, that they have no desire to endure? Are you suggesting that the OLDEST AI isn't sentient?

B. The kid actually does react, he immediatly dissapears, fades away. In control and synthesis, however, it zooms in on his (catalyst) face and he smirks.

I didn't found a cutscene that shows the Catalyst after the Synthesis option is chosen, but I saw the Control ending, and he fades in that ending, after the zoom, no smirks though.

Yeah exactly. He's not shown in Synthesis. He fades out in Destroy, and I barely could even make out a smirk in control

[balance5050]

Valentia X wrote...

Can we knock it off with the insults please?

Back on point; regarding the 'God Child is only offering solutions because it doesn't want to die', which may or may not be errornous because we don't know to what level, if any, that it has achieved sentience/sapience, it can also be argued that it offers control and synthesis as viable (re: not wanting the Reapers to win) alternatives that allow for the cycle to be broken.

Taken at face value- and there is no definitive proof that it's being anything but straightforward- control and synthesis also alleviate the 'symptoms' that cause the Reapers to need (by their own thought process) to return and cull civilisations. There is a chance, as likely as any, that the God Child is adjusting for new information and reacting accordingly. If the Reapers truly believe that they are salvation, then control and synthesis allows everyone to survive and the Reapers to leave/be controlled by a 'power' that has proven itself stronger than any other cycle (Shepard) or become part of the galactic fabric via synthesis.

So, at face value, is it safe to assume that the catalyst views control and synthesis as "preferable" to destroy?

[ThinkIntegral]

balance5050 wrote...

If they have no will to live then they aren't sentient.

Or it's willing to kill itself for you by choice or because of the Crucible.

[balance5050]

ThinkIntegral wrote...

davishepard wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

When life becomes sentient, it realises that it doesn't want to die. This si expressed when the Geth no longer wanted to shut down.

A. are you suggesting that the Reapers aren't sentient, that they have no desire to endure? Are you suggesting that the OLDEST AI isn't sentient?

B. The kid actually does react, he immediatly dissapears, fades away. In control and synthesis, however, it zooms in on his (catalyst) face and he smirks.

I didn't found a cutscene that shows the Catalyst after the Synthesis option is chosen, but I saw the Control ending, and he fades in that ending, after the zoom, no smirks though.

Yeah exactly. He's not shown in Synthesis. He fades out in Destroy, and I barely could even make out a smirk in control

I was mistaken about the syntheis, and the smirk may or may not be there. but it does zoom in his face in control and not destroy.

[Iconoclaste]

balance5050 wrote...

If they have no will to live then they aren't sentient.

Maybe not a "will to live", but rather a "purpose to exist", which becomes extinct with the "new solution" the Crucible provides. It is powerless to refrain Shepard from making a choice.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 06 mai 2012 - 12:14 .

[KingZayd]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
It would have Shep pick something other than Destroy because it believes organics will create the synthetics that will wipe them out. It states it outright.

Why attach a hidden motive when none is needed?

why does it care? there is a hidden motive either way.

You do remember the story of ME, right?

yes. to which part do you refer?

[balance5050]

ThinkIntegral wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

If they have no will to live then they aren't sentient.

Or it's willing to kill itself for you by choice or because of the Crucible.

So essentially the catalyst is the program that the reapers follow, and the crucible changed that program. Is this acceptable?

[davishepard]

balance5050 wrote...

If they have no will to live then they aren't sentient.

Because you say so?

Just because they don't care in dying, but to fulfill their objective, doesn't mean they are not sentient.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

CavScout wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
A) You don't even have the courtesy to admit when you lied and were caught.
I don't answer/defend strawmen.

A) I didn't lie. I made a mistake. I'm sorry about that. But I wasn't lying. If i was lying, I wouldn't have linked to the thread that contained proof that what I said about you preferring synthesis was wrong. I clearly linked to it because I thought that you were defending it as the superior option. I've admitted that i made a mistake. I'm not a liar, but i'm not infallible.
again, why is it a strawman? it was just a question where a simple "no." would have sufficed.

A) You did lie. I mean, how can you claim you made a "mistake" yet were still able to link to proof of it? Which do you want?
It's a point I never made. The very definition of a straw man.

At this point the only thing you are proving is, that you are only breathing so you can ARGUE about anything.

you must not be an enjoyable companion, except when you're asleep.

You are quite the troll. I'll give you props there.

Say quick, where's that gif of kettle/pot................................ LOL