528 réponses à ce sujet

[insomniac13]

BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SENSE ATALL!

[Pride Demon]

Bathaius wrote...

Sweawm wrote...

What happened to: "I'd rather die than live like that!" ?

That is the ending that is ironically not provided to the player, and the only way to achieve it is to ctrl+alt+del and end task, like I did.

Actually if you just stand there doing nothing for a sufficiently long amount of time you'll get "The crucible has been destroyed: Critical mission failure".
Just headcanon it like that...

[antares_sublight]

Ieldra2 wrote...
As for your objection, I have already outlined how that might work (scroll down to the last third). The solution is nanite clusters which reproduce themselves and pass on to the offspring. 

You make interesting (purely speculative) arguments, but I don't agree with the majority and you have to throw away way too much actual game canon to try and twist it to make sense, and add way too much extra speculation. Far too much for it to be a supportable/loveable thing to force on all life in the galaxy. And given what information Shepard had at the time, he's the most reckless entity in the history of the galaxy if he chooses synthesis.

As to this point you make, which I've responded to before with no reply:

What is possible (but in no way mandatory) is to end *natural*
evolution. To do so requires intent, complete knowledge about how human
bodies grow from DNA and a technology that can routinely make any
desired change at that level. I think that the Synthesis will provide
the means to end natural evolution and replace it with deliberate design
if the post-Synthesis civilizations so choose...
I posit that the Synthesis will give every intelligent organic a
synthetic symbiont in form of a cluster of nanomachines, possibly
distributed through the body. This symbiont serves as a secondary immune
system and slows aging (cf. the perfectionist imperative) and can be
controlled in a similar way to biotics' eezo nodules in order to effect
specific desired enhancements and changes as desired by the individual.

My question is, how much intelligence has synthesis given plant and microbial life then? Or has their evolution simply stopped where they were at Synthesis decision time, Shepard having frozen them as they are for eternity? Or are you suggesting the nanomachines are intelligent enough to know how to modify their "host" for survival, in which case it's really just synthetics, not any kind of hybrid. Remember this synthesis affects ALL LIFE, not just intelligent life.

What do these nanomachines gain from this symbiosis? How much control do they have over the organic life? What risks are there for the organic life to lose control to nanomachines?

[PsyrenY]

antares_sublight wrote...

My question is, how much intelligence has synthesis given plant and microbial life then? Or has their evolution simply stopped where they were at Synthesis decision time, Shepard having frozen them as they are for eternity? Or are you suggesting the nanomachines are intelligent enough to know how to modify their "host" for survival, in which case it's really just synthetics, not any kind of hybrid. Remember this synthesis affects ALL LIFE, not just intelligent life.

What do these nanomachines gain from this symbiosis? How much control do they have over the organic life? What risks are there for the organic life to lose control to nanomachines?

We actually have a template for lower forms of life - the Geth.

"Individual Geth programs have animal-like intelligence" - Were I writing Synthesis, I would envision lower forms of life, like plants and beasts, to lack the processing capacity of true AI. So an individual tree would be no more aware than it is now... but you could have a sentient forest as the components network together. (Note that this also removes the ethical problems of eating sapient potatoes etc.)

But what does this mean? It could change quite a lot of dynamics - you could end up with resource harvesting moving from a highly disruptive process (pollution, deforestation) into becoming an equitable partnership. I'm venturing into Spaaaaaaaace Maaaaagic territory here, but imagine the kind of symbiotic relationships that fantasy races have with their environments - how elves and other sylvan entities can draw wood from the forests without harming the trees, or incorporate whole communities seamlessly within the boughs. Nanotechnology as a common denominator can make these sort of druidic ideals a reality - heightening wood production when it is needed (winter), then reallocating to regrowth when it is not (summer), making space within the canopy for a humanoid community without disrupting the natural biosphere etc.

In short, Synthesis' metaphor of the galaxy entering a new Eden runs deeper than we can imagine; making that choice could actually turn Mass Effect into an anachronism of untold proportion. Think of Bioshock, and the practically magical abilities of ADAM and Plasmids - sufficiently-advanced nanotech can duplicate any number of those with trivial ease. And I'm only scratching the surface.



Which is another reason why I consider Synthesis to be a very final ending to Mass Effect - not only are the effects nearly impossible to truly map out/make common with the other endings, it could even radically alter the genre and tone of the entire setting. Certainly Synthesis throws any notion of hard sci-fi out the window. Whether that is a good thing or not, I suppose depends on what you signed up for and how much you like that sort of thing.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 11 mai 2012 - 02:14 .

[antares_sublight]

Optimystic_X wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

My question is, how much intelligence has synthesis given plant and microbial life then? Or has their evolution simply stopped where they were at Synthesis decision time, Shepard having frozen them as they are for eternity? Or are you suggesting the nanomachines are intelligent enough to know how to modify their "host" for survival, in which case it's really just synthetics, not any kind of hybrid. Remember this synthesis affects ALL LIFE, not just intelligent life.

What do these nanomachines gain from this symbiosis? How much control do they have over the organic life? What risks are there for the organic life to lose control to nanomachines?

We actually have a template for lower forms of life - the Geth.

"Individual Geth programs have animal-like intelligence" - Were I writing Synthesis, I would envision lower forms of life, like plants and beasts, to lack the processing capacity of true AI. So an individual tree would be no more aware than it is now... but you could have a sentient forest as the components network together. (Note that this also removes the ethical problems of eating sapient potatoes etc.)

But what does this mean? It could change quite a lot of dynamics - you could end up with resource harvesting moving from a highly disruptive process (pollution, deforestation) into becoming an equitable partnership. I'm venturing into Spaaaaaaaace Maaaaagic territory here, but imagine the kind of symbiotic relationships that fantasy races have with their environments - how elves and other sylvan entities can draw wood from the forests without harming the trees, or incorporate whole communities seamlessly within the boughs. Nanotechnology as a common denominator can make these sort of druidic ideals a reality - heightening wood production when it is needed (winter), then reallocating to regrowth when it is not (summer.)

In short, Synthesis' metaphor of the galaxy entering a new Eden runs deeper than we can imagine; making that choice could actually turn Mass Effect into an anachronism of untold proportion. Think of Bioshock, and the practically magical abilities of ADAM and Plasmids - sufficiently-advanced nanotech can duplicate any number of those with trivial ease. And I'm only scratching the surface.


Which is another reason why I consider Synthesis to be a very final ending to Mass Effect - not only are the effects nearly impossible to truly map out/make common with the other endings, it could even radically alter the genre and tone of the entire setting. Certainly Synthesis throws any notion of hard sci-fi out the window. Whether that is a good thing or not, I suppose depends on what you signed up for and how much you like that sort of thing.

So the ultimate fantasy utopia not even imagined in any other sci-fi universe? All controlled by and dependent on these nanomachines... Everyone is under their influence and control, all life has become puppets to the nanomachine masters.

"I won't sacrifice the soul of our species to do it" - Shepard

Modifié par antares_sublight, 11 mai 2012 - 02:10 .

[PsyrenY]

antares_sublight wrote...
So the ultimate fantasy utopia not even imagined in any other sci-fi universe? All controlled by and dependent on these nanomachines... Everyone is under their influence and control, all life has become puppets to the nanomachine masters.

That's like saying you're under the "influence and control" of your nervous system. Yeah, it enables everything you can do, but you still have your own volition; the same would apply here.

Nanotech would just mean you can do more.

And I fully agree with and accept the fact that Synthesis would mean ME isn't sci-fi anymore (or at least not hard sci-fi.) If any ending is "space magic," green is it. I just don't really see that as a problem. Given how many folks are here touting the Witcher, I imagine a lot of us play and like fantasy, and this would be fantasy with guns and spaceships.

[frylock23]

Optimystic_X wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

My question is, how much intelligence has synthesis given plant and microbial life then? Or has their evolution simply stopped where they were at Synthesis decision time, Shepard having frozen them as they are for eternity? Or are you suggesting the nanomachines are intelligent enough to know how to modify their "host" for survival, in which case it's really just synthetics, not any kind of hybrid. Remember this synthesis affects ALL LIFE, not just intelligent life.

What do these nanomachines gain from this symbiosis? How much control do they have over the organic life? What risks are there for the organic life to lose control to nanomachines?

We actually have a template for lower forms of life - the Geth.

"Individual Geth programs have animal-like intelligence" - Were I writing Synthesis, I would envision lower forms of life, like plants and beasts, to lack the processing capacity of true AI. So an individual tree would be no more aware than it is now... but you could have a sentient forest as the components network together. (Note that this also removes the ethical problems of eating sapient potatoes etc.)

Why would it? One potato might not be sapient, but when you removed it from the field of potatoes, you did something monstrous. You diminshed it and made the field less. And, you did it for the sole, express purpose of consuming part of the field. You animal! How could you?!

But what does this mean? It could change quite a lot of dynamics - you could end up with resource harvesting moving from a highly disruptive process (pollution, deforestation) into becoming an equitable partnership. I'm venturing into Spaaaaaaaace Maaaaagic territory here, but imagine the kind of symbiotic relationships that fantasy races have with their environments - how elves and other sylvan entities can draw wood from the forests without harming the trees, or incorporate whole communities seamlessly within the boughs. Nanotechnology as a common denominator can make these sort of druidic ideals a reality - heightening wood production when it is needed (winter), then reallocating to regrowth when it is not (summer.)

Why is the only image I can conjure that of Hannibal Lector eating that guy's brain and then getting him to eat part of it?

Are you suggesting that plants will just benignly give up their offspring to be eaten or allow themselves to be diminshed in intellect by other species. I am also thinking of a new version of that old Rush song "The Trees" here. Did it never occur to you that plants can be selfish, too?

In short, Synthesis' metaphor of the galaxy entering a new Eden runs deeper than we can imagine; making that choice could actually turn Mass Effect into an anachronism of untold proportion. Think of Bioshock, and the practically magical abilities of ADAM and Plasmids - sufficiently-advanced nanotech can duplicate any number of those with trivial ease. And I'm only scratching the surface.

I'm sorry, but you're just creating Utopia -> no place. It's impossible to create perfection. This again gets back to the root of all conflict being difference. And the only way to get rid of conflict is to remove difference. The only way to do that is to induce some kind of mind control along with this new DNA that we create by altering the fabric of reality.

Modifié par frylock23, 11 mai 2012 - 02:15 .

[antares_sublight]

Optimystic_X wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...
So the ultimate fantasy utopia not even imagined in any other sci-fi universe? All controlled by and dependent on these nanomachines... Everyone is under their influence and control, all life has become puppets to the nanomachine masters.

That's like saying you're under the "influence and control" of your nervous system. Yeah, it enables everything you can do, but you still have your own volition; the same would apply here.

Nanotech would just mean you can do more.

And I fully agree with and accept the fact that Synthesis would mean ME isn't sci-fi anymore (or at least not hard sci-fi.) If any ending is "space magic," green is it. I just don't really see that as a problem. Given how many folks are here touting the Witcher, I imagine a lot of us play and like fantasy, and this would be fantasy with guns and spaceships.

1. You just said lower species would not have the intelligence themselves, but rather through the networked nanomachines would be intelligent to make decisions. The trees are husks controlled by the nanomachines.
2. your central nervous system is not independently intelligent, nor does it link to other nervous systems to become part of an intelligent network. It's a component, and not comparable to this whole nanomachine idea.

[frylock23]

Optimystic_X wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...
So the ultimate fantasy utopia not even imagined in any other sci-fi universe? All controlled by and dependent on these nanomachines... Everyone is under their influence and control, all life has become puppets to the nanomachine masters.

That's like saying you're under the "influence and control" of your nervous system. Yeah, it enables everything you can do, but you still have your own volition; the same would apply here.

Nanotech would just mean you can do more.

And I fully agree with and accept the fact that Synthesis would mean ME isn't sci-fi anymore (or at least not hard sci-fi.) If any ending is "space magic," green is it. I just don't really see that as a problem. Given how many folks are here touting the Witcher, I imagine a lot of us play and like fantasy, and this would be fantasy with guns and spaceships.

The big problem with this as an ending is that the other 99% of the series is at least making an attempt to ground itself in some kind of science. Even the things the Reapers do is somewhat grounded in science. And here, all of a sudden, we have this giant weapon supposedly built countless cycles of less technologically advanced civilizations that statistically speaking shouldn't have survived (pretty much 0 probability of it making it through all those other cycles). Then, when those plans are uncovered, each cycle had to be able to interpret them AND add to them AND save them for the next cycle ... Yeah riiiiight.

Anyhoo, this thing that has been collectively built by less advanced species than the Reapers suddenly gets finished and hitches up to the Citadel and does things that are scientifically impossible and unexplainable?!

This has absolutely NO PLACE in ME. None. And that's yet another reason why the endings are so poorly received. We shouldn't be having this discussion because none of the three options should exist. They shouldn't be possible within the context of the ME universe. The whole notion of the Crucible is impossible to begin with as implemented.

[PsyrenY]

frylock23 wrote...

Why would it? One potato might not be sapient, but when you removed it from the field of potatoes, you did something monstrous. You diminshed it and made the field less. And, you did it for the sole, express purpose of consuming part of the field. You animal! How could you?!

And if the potato field actually GAVE you the potato to eat? Because that would be its purpose after all - feeding higher organics so that they aid in its propagation through excretion. You aren't destroying the plant itself by eating the tuber/fruit/etc.

And that's assuming we even still need to eat at all, rather than just getting our energy from a nearby star directly like plants do.

frylock23 wrote...
Are you suggesting that plants will just benignly give up their offspring to be eaten

That's what plants do NOW. Have you ever studied botany?

frylock23 wrote...
I'm sorry, but you're just creating Utopia -> no place.

Mass Effect is already "no place" - it's all a fantasy already, none of it really exists. (Unless we head past Pluto, find a Mass Relay there, and proceed to **** bricks.)

frylock23 wrote...

It's impossible to create perfection. This again gets back to the root of all conflict being difference. And the only way to get rid of conflict is to remove difference. The only way to do that is to induce some kind of mind control along with this new DNA that we create by altering the fabric of reality.

Nah, plenty of room for conflict still. Even the Geth, a perfectly harmonious race that "knew each others minds," ended up with a pretty radical schism based on a math glitch. And since we still have organic components, there's still going to be mutations and such. (Which is a good thing, because mutation = biotics.)

So no, no perfection - just a great base to build an interesting setting from. (And hey, we'd still need something to shoot at.)

[PsyrenY]

antares_sublight wrote...

1. You just said lower species would not have the intelligence themselves, but rather through the networked nanomachines would be intelligent to make decisions. The trees are husks controlled by the nanomachines.
2. your central nervous system is not independently intelligent, nor does it link to other nervous systems to become part of an intelligent network. It's a component, and not comparable to this whole nanomachine idea.

1. Nanotech alone does not a husk make. Husks are formed because their specific implants subvert both the biology and free will of the host, replacing them with reliance on the Reapers for animation and direction. They're zombies because they depend on Reaper control, not because of their structure. And Synthesis does not employ dragon's teeth either.

2. Did you read what I posted? Individual trees/potatoes/animals would NOT be intelligent. Only complex life-forms - like the current advanced races - would be fully-sapient individuals.

[antares_sublight]

Optimystic_X wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

1. You just said lower species would not have the intelligence themselves, but rather through the networked nanomachines would be intelligent to make decisions. The trees are husks controlled by the nanomachines.
2. your central nervous system is not independently intelligent, nor does it link to other nervous systems to become part of an intelligent network. It's a component, and not comparable to this whole nanomachine idea.

1. Nanotech alone does not a husk make. Husks are formed because their specific implants subvert both the biology and free will of the host, replacing them with reliance on the Reapers for animation and direction. They're zombies because they depend on Reaper control, not because of their structure. And Synthesis does not employ dragon's teeth either.

2. Did you read what I posted? Individual trees/potatoes/animals would NOT be intelligent. Only complex life-forms - like the current advanced races - would be fully-sapient individuals.

1. Plant life is under full control of the nanomachines. You say the nanomachines can network and make decisions regarding the trees. If evolution has stopped and is now a deliberate process for intelligent life, then the nanomachines are controlling the organic life that used to be a tree.
2. You wrote that the plants would network together and become intelligent enough to make deliberate decisions. If plant life is not intelligent and synthesis has stopped natural evolution, then how will any species adapt and survive? Are you saying the nanomachines will decide how the organic life they inhibit will adapt? They're controlling the existence of the non-intelligent life then. ALL OF IT IN THE GALAXY. Viruses, microbes, bacteria, single-celled amoeba at the bottom of the ocean, on and on.

Frankly, I'd rather not have viruses be networking together, would you?

Modifié par antares_sublight, 11 mai 2012 - 02:33 .

[frylock23]

Optimystic_X wrote...


And if the potato field actually GAVE you the potato to eat? Because that would be its purpose after all - feeding higher organics so that they aid in its propagation through excretion. You aren't destroying the plant itself by eating the tuber/fruit/etc.

And that's assuming we even still need to eat at all, rather than just getting our energy from a nearby star directly like plants do.

That's just too creepy to contemplate. Now, I'm picturing potatoes hanging out of the soil virtually screaming "eat me!"

That's what plants do NOW. Have you ever studied botany?

Yes, but they aren't actually aware of it. Your version suggests that they now do it for the Greater Good. It's like some weird version of a plant dystopia. I like the of what we have now where they aren't aware of what they're doing and why.

Mass Effect is already "no place" - it's all a fantasy already, none of it really exists. (Unless we head past Pluto, find a Mass Relay there, and proceed to **** bricks.)

Yes, but it's believable no place because it's recognizable. We can suspend our disbelief to accept it because it's a lot more real than Utopia will ever be.

Nah, plenty of room for conflict still. Even the Geth, a perfectly harmonious race that "knew each others minds," ended up with a pretty radical schism based on a math glitch. And since we still have organic components, there's still going to be mutations and such. (Which is a good thing, because mutation = biotics.)

So no, no perfection - just a great base to build an interesting setting from. (And hey, we'd still need something to shoot at.)

I'm not sure how you get mutations when the nanite machines inhabit our DNA and oversee everything to make sure it all runs according to clockwork like you've been suggesting in other replies. If everything and everyone is networked right down the most basic, then there is little chance of anything being allowed to get out of sync with anything else. Little chance of anything being allowed to cause disharmony. It's like you've created a galactic Big Brother system.

[PsyrenY]

antares_sublight wrote...

1. Plant life is under full control of the nanomachines. You say the nanomachines can network and make decisions regarding the trees. If evolution has stopped and is now a deliberate process for intelligent life, then the nanomachines are controlling the organic life that used to be a tree.
2. You wrote that the plants would network together and become intelligent enough to make deliberate decisions. If plant life is not intelligent and synthesis has stopped natural evolution, then how will any species adapt and survive? Are you saying the nanomachines will decide how the organic life they inhibit will adapt? They're controlling the existence of the non-intelligent life then. ALL OF IT IN THE GALAXY. Viruses, microbes, bacteria, single-celled amoeba at the bottom of the ocean, on and on.

Frankly, I'd rather not have viruses be networking together, would you?

1. It's no different than being controlled by your instincts or DNA. Deciduous plants are conditioned to shed all their leaves in winter - does that make them husks? All nanotech would do is (a) increase the range of responses to stimuli available to each organism and ( allow them to adapt much, much more quickly to a changing environment.

2. You're digging much deeper than you need to. When I envision intelligent plant-life, I envision someting on the order of a Genius Loci - an entity that cares more about the ecosystem/forest as a whole, than the welfare of each individual plant and animal. Not supersmart bacteria and viruses.

Avatar is a great example of how Synthesis could work, albeit on a smaller scale. You have a planet-wide network, and every single plant and animal has USB ports that they use to interface with each other instinctively, or that the intelligent organics can use willingly to interface with them. Eywa is that network. You would end up with a nature that can continue to passively thrive as it always has, but in the face of destruction by external forces, is capable of rising up to defend itself rather than passively being obliterated to the detriment of all.

Note that Avatar itself is a soft sci-fi setting - that's the direction I would see Synthesis taking the ME-verse, but on a MUCH wider (galactic, rather than planetary) scale.

[PsyrenY]

frylock23 wrote...
That's just too creepy to contemplate. Now, I'm picturing potatoes hanging out of the soil virtually screaming "eat me!"
...
Yes, but they aren't actually aware of it. Your version suggests that they now do it for the Greater Good. It's like some weird version of a plant dystopia. I like the of what we have now where they aren't aware of what they're doing and why.

Ironic, then, that you are the one supposedly championing free will yet you prefer plant life that is kept ignorant of the boons it provides.

But no, you're still misinterpreting me and personifying individual potatoes ("eat me!"). A simple organism like a potato would be no more aware than it is now. But a forest or field would be able to regulate itself - provide resources for the needs of those that depend on it for sustenance and no more.

And again, that is still assuming we need to eat at all (we may not.)

frylock23 wrote...
Yes, but it's believable no place because it's recognizable. We can suspend our disbelief to accept it because it's a lot more real than Utopia will ever be.

As a fantasy fan, I can accept lots of things. This kind of setting isn't for everyone, and I accept that. If it's not for you, pick a different color.

frylock23 wrote...
I'm not sure how you get mutations when the nanite machines inhabit our DNA and oversee everything to make sure it all runs according to clockwork like you've been suggesting in other replies. If everything and everyone is networked right down the most basic, then there is little chance of anything being allowed to get out of sync with anything else. Little chance of anything being allowed to cause disharmony. It's like you've created a galactic Big Brother system.

Even the supposedly perfect Geth were able to "mutate" and disagree with one another. Nanites have the potential to be as fallible as their organic equivalents.

The difference is that synthesis makes it so the hybrids have as much potential as the synthetics do. Geth surpassed organics in 300 years because they were able to self-optimize/overclock their systems far faster than we could evolve. But my vision of Synthesis' deliberate change can match this speed of self-improvement and keep us from being (literally) left in the dust.

[antares_sublight]

Optimystic_X wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

1. Plant life is under full control of the nanomachines. You say the nanomachines can network and make decisions regarding the trees. If evolution has stopped and is now a deliberate process for intelligent life, then the nanomachines are controlling the organic life that used to be a tree.
2. You wrote that the plants would network together and become intelligent enough to make deliberate decisions. If plant life is not intelligent and synthesis has stopped natural evolution, then how will any species adapt and survive? Are you saying the nanomachines will decide how the organic life they inhibit will adapt? They're controlling the existence of the non-intelligent life then. ALL OF IT IN THE GALAXY. Viruses, microbes, bacteria, single-celled amoeba at the bottom of the ocean, on and on.

Frankly, I'd rather not have viruses be networking together, would you?

1. It's no different than being controlled by your instincts or DNA. Deciduous plants are conditioned to shed all their leaves in winter - does that make them husks? All nanotech would do is (a) increase the range of responses to stimuli available to each organism and ( allow them to adapt much, much more quickly to a changing environment.

2. You're digging much deeper than you need to. When I envision intelligent plant-life, I envision someting on the order of a Genius Loci - an entity that cares more about the ecosystem/forest as a whole, than the welfare of each individual plant and animal. Not supersmart bacteria and viruses.

Avatar is a great example of how Synthesis could work, albeit on a smaller scale. You have a planet-wide network, and every single plant and animal has USB ports that they use to interface with each other instinctively, or that the intelligent organics can use willingly to interface with them. Eywa is that network. You would end up with a nature that can continue to passively thrive as it always has, but in the face of destruction by external forces, is capable of rising up to defend itself rather than passively being obliterated to the detriment of all.

Note that Avatar itself is a soft sci-fi setting - that's the direction I would see Synthesis taking the ME-verse, but on a MUCH wider (galactic, rather than planetary) scale.

1. One is a natural consequence of evolution, one is a separate nanomachine dictating what you do. Very different. Your points a & b don't match what you've said about plant life becoming networked in order to make deliberate decisions.
2. Now you're saying not all organic life was synthesized? Why would a forest be networkable but not a colony of bacteria?
3. So synthesis is making the galaxy one big Avatar planet? Ugh.

[akenn312]

Optimystic_X wrote...

In short, Synthesis' metaphor of the galaxy entering a new Eden runs deeper than we can imagine; making that choice could actually turn Mass Effect into an anachronism of untold proportion. Think of Bioshock, and the practically magical abilities of ADAM and Plasmids - sufficiently-advanced nanotech can duplicate any number of those with trivial ease. And I'm only scratching the surface.


Which is another reason why I consider Synthesis to be a very final ending to Mass Effect - not only are the effects nearly impossible to truly map out/make common with the other endings, it could even radically alter the genre and tone of the entire setting. Certainly Synthesis throws any notion of hard sci-fi out the window. Whether that is a good thing or not, I suppose depends on what you signed up for and how much you like that sort of thing.

Are we not speculating? Those speculations are great but that's just made up by you and we don't know what would happen. All nano machines and magic abilities aside the reasons synthesis is the worst IMO is this quote antares_sublight wrote on Shepard and how he would beat the Reapers.

"I won't sacrifice the soul of our species to do it" - Shepard

This one quote sums up why Shepard is fighting against the Reapers and what they are doing to the galaxy. They are forcing people into an ascension and a their outlook of a utopia and perfection without anyone being given a choice in the matter. They are bending the inherent natural evolution of the organic and synthetic species to achieve this goal.

No matter if their goal is to make a new "Eden" or create the perfect organic/synthetic being they do not have any right to do it. Who are they to say how we need to evolve? Shepard is the basic martyr for free will and choice and the strength to hold on to that right. If we wanted to become perfect then we just need to submit to the Reapers and let them harvest us, or save the Reapers the trouble and just make everyone into a cyborg on our terms.

Shepard was fighting to gain back the natural cycle of the universe without any tampering from the Reapers or anyone else. Fighting to stay the way you are with the constant temptation to enhance yourself to perfection has one of the deepest meanings in this story. Sure the Illusive Man brought Shepard back with synthetic parts but Shepard was strong enough not to allow that to change who he was. Sure Miranda was perfect genetically but Shepard helped her realize none of the enhancements made her better than anyone else and that she was more than perfection. Sure the Genophage stopped the Krogan menace but was that right to play god and take away their ability to reproduce to save us from a possible threat?

I think for Bioware to make synthesis the best option for the game really shocked me. It's basically saying to us conforming and giving in as long as you can survive or get ahead is okay now. Maybe that is what they are really trying to say here. Sure with synthesis there is potential for no sickness, we might live for hundreds of years all in one consciousness and in a new utopia of technology and awareness with boundless possibilities. But really what was wrong with being a human, Turian, Geth, Salarin, Krogan or Asari in the first place?

Modifié par akenn312, 11 mai 2012 - 03:13 .

[Computron2000]

Pride Demon wrote...

Bathaius wrote...

Sweawm wrote...

What happened to: "I'd rather die than live like that!" ?

That is the ending that is ironically not provided to the player, and the only way to achieve it is to ctrl+alt+del and end task, like I did.

Actually if you just stand there doing nothing for a sufficiently long amount of time you'll get "The crucible has been destroyed: Critical mission failure".
Just headcanon it like that...

No i doesn't work like that, I stood there for nearly an hour and nothing happened. To get that message you have to choose one option, walk to the top of the platform of that option (or close to the synthesis one) then turn back and try to choose another one.

The message only occurs if you're indecisive, NOT if you choose to do nothing.

By making it in such a way, it means your Shepard is forever utterly trusting of the Reaper boy and believe him (thus choosing from the choices given)

[PsyrenY]

antares_sublight wrote...


1. One is a natural consequence of evolution, one is a separate nanomachine dictating what you do. Very different. Your points a & b don't match what you've said about plant life becoming networked in order to make deliberate decisions.
2. Now you're saying not all organic life was synthesized? Why would a forest be networkable but not a colony of bacteria?
3. So synthesis is making the galaxy one big Avatar planet? Ugh.

1a. Evolution is just very slow reaction to continuous stimuli, broken up by more rapid periods of change due to mutation or engineering. Nanotechnology would do the same, but faster, and with the added bonus of being able to change based on perceived ends rather than current conditions. I see no functional difference between the two.
1b. How do my points not match? (a) and ( refer to the individual plants, not the network. They're completely separate concepts.

2. Networking bacteria would be like networking calculators, or watches. Yeah you have a network, but the complexity of the components is still lower so the capabilities would be less. A single computer could still computationally outperform a network of calculators.

3. Already admitted this notion isn't for everyone, if it's not for you don't pick green.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 11 mai 2012 - 03:17 .

[antares_sublight]

Optimystic_X wrote...
Ironic, then, that you are the one supposedly championing free will yet you prefer plant life that is kept ignorant of the boons it provides.

"You may take my fruits, but you'll never take ... my FREEDOM!!!!" Since when is our goal vegetable liberation? You're taking the position that making plants intelligent is a main part of the goal?

But no, you're still misinterpreting me and personifying individual potatoes ("eat me!"). A simple organism like a potato would be no more aware than it is now. But a forest or field would be able to regulate itself - provide resources for the needs of those that depend on it for sustenance and no more.

How does it do this? An individual plant is not sentient in any way, but together they are a life-form making decisions and regulating itself? What's to stop them from deciding to modify themselves to have legs and arms and hands and just say, screw you other sentients, we don't need to help anyone. There are so many questions and problems with this.

And again, that is still assuming we need to eat at all (we may not.)

Not all life exists in the light, nor in the air, nor in the water... there is not a single solution for energy intake.

Even the supposedly perfect Geth were able to "mutate" and disagree with one another. Nanites have the potential to be as fallible as their organic equivalents.

What's to stop nanomachines from turning on their hosts?

The difference is that synthesis makes it so the hybrids have as much potential as the synthetics do. Geth surpassed organics in 300 years because they were able to self-optimize/overclock their systems far faster than we could evolve. But my vision of Synthesis' deliberate change can match this speed of self-improvement and keep us from being (literally) left in the dust.

If nanites are as falliable as organic equivalents, and being organic is somehow naturally a disadvantage to synthetics, then it's still possible for a pure synthetic to be created that would overrun even these synthesized hybrids. So synthesis didn't actually solve the problem.

Pre-synthesis:
Pure synthetics' potential for singularity-level advancement = 100
Pure organics potential for singularity-level advancement = 0

Post-synthesis (option A - only advantages are additive):
Hybrid organic-synthetic potential for singularity-level advancement = 100
Pure synthetics' potential for singularity-level advancement = 100
=> So the original problem is still a problem, it just depends on speed of advancement and all arguments point to organics slowing things down.

Post-synthesis (option B - advantages average-in):
Hybrid organic-synthetic potential for singularity-level advancement = 50
Pure synthetics' potential for singularity-level advancement = 100
=> So the original problem is still a problem, synthesis has leveled the playing field for organics and synthetics that were in existence during the Synthesis Decision.

[antares_sublight]

Optimystic_X wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...


1. One is a natural consequence of evolution, one is a separate nanomachine dictating what you do. Very different. Your points a & b don't match what you've said about plant life becoming networked in order to make deliberate decisions.
2. Now you're saying not all organic life was synthesized? Why would a forest be networkable but not a colony of bacteria?
3. So synthesis is making the galaxy one big Avatar planet? Ugh.

1a. Evolution is just very slow reaction to continuous stimuli, broken up by more rapid periods of change due to mutation or engineering. Nanotechnology would do the same, but faster, and with the added bonus of being able to change based on perceived ends rather than current conditions. I see no functional difference between the two.
1b. How do my points not match? (a) and ( refer to the individual plants, not the network. They're completely separate concepts.

2. Networking bacteria would be like networking calculators, or watches. Yeah you have a network, but the complexity of the components is still lower so the capabilities would be less. A single computer could still computationally outperform a network of calculators.

3. Already admitted this notion isn't for everyone, if it's not for you don't pick green.

1. You're postulating that the intelligence of nanomachines would decide for non-sentient life how they would adapt. They're controlled by the nanomachines, not by the environment or survival. You're now saying that individual plants will adapt more quickly, but a network of plants will make deliberate intelligent decisions on how individual plants will behave, perhaps overriding the individual plants' adaptation decisions?
2. No. You're saying the networked forest can make deliberate intelligent decisions, but a network of bacteria can't? What?

[PsyrenY]

[quote]antares_sublight wrote...

"You may take my fruits, but you'll never take ... my FREEDOM!!!!" Since when is our goal vegetable liberation? You're taking the position that making plants intelligent is a main part of the goal?[/quote]

For the last time, individual plants would not be intelligent.
The network would be.

I'm trying to be patient but it seems like you folks are deliberately ignoring what I'm saying and that makes any rational discourse with you a waste of my time.

[quote]antares_sublight wrote...
How does it do this? An individual plant is not sentient in any way, but together they are a life-form making decisions and regulating itself?[/quote]

How do cells do it? Cells are not sentient, but put 10 trillion of them together across various functions and you have a human being. Same concept.

[quote]antares_sublight wrote...
Not all life exists in the light, nor in the air, nor in the water... there is not a single solution for energy intake.[/quote]

All life energy comes from stars ultimately. Between that commonality and the commonality of nanotech, ways will be found.

And if eating is still necessary for some organisms, I've already addressed that.

[quote]antares_sublight wrote...
What's to stop nanomachines from turning on their hosts?[/quote]

What's to stop your cells/genes from turning on you?
But for a better answer to this question, see your last point below.

[quote]antares_sublight wrote...
If nanites are as falliable as organic equivalents, and being organic is somehow naturally a disadvantage to synthetics, then it's still possible for a pure synthetic to be created that would overrun even these synthesized hybrids. So synthesis didn't actually solve the problem.[/quote]

The true problem is that organics are slow. It took the Geth 300 years to catch up to - if not surpass - everyone else's 50,000. That is the problem Synthesis is meant to fix; Give the Geth enough time, and they are one math glitch away from murdering all of us.

All three endings have the potential of solving this problem. Destroy resets the synthetics, then you follow the Javik/Skynet philosophy of trying to keep them stomped wherever they arise. Obviously, this won't last forever, just like the Catalyst claims, but how long it lasts depends on how vigilant the organics are.

Control gives you your own totally-obedient super-synthetics to wage war with... if you can keep a leash on them. Hence the Catalyst's doubt.

Synthesis levels the playing field; the only long-term chance we have, from the Catalyst's perspective. And I find it hard to disagree when presented with the facts we have.

Pre-synthesis:
Pure synthetics' potential for singularity-level advancement = 100
Pure organics potential for singularity-level advancement = 0

Post-synthesis (option A - only advantages are additive):
Hybrid organic-synthetic potential for singularity-level advancement = 100
Pure synthetics' potential for singularity-level advancement = 100
=> So the original problem is still a problem, it just depends on speed of advancement and all arguments point to organics slowing things down.

Post-synthesis (option B - advantages average-in):
Hybrid organic-synthetic potential for singularity-level advancement = 50
Pure synthetics' potential for singularity-level advancement = 100
=> So the original problem is still a problem, synthesis has leveled the playing field for organics and synthetics that were in existence during the Synthesis Decision.

[/quote]

You're forgetting option C - organics 50 synthetics 50. Remember that Synthesis affects them too. Read the original script, about how it makes synthetics more organic (more like us); meaning that synthetics would no longer be one math glitch away from slaughter. EDI for instance is capable of emotions like humor and love, and synthetics would need this kind of connection to want to defend organics to the death. Synthesis ensures that all synthetics would be capable of such empathy.


I'm done for now (lots of work to do) but I'll be back in this thread later.

[PsyrenY]

antares_sublight wrote...

1. You're postulating that the intelligence of nanomachines would decide for non-sentient life how they would adapt. They're controlled by the nanomachines, not by the environment or survival. You're now saying that individual plants will adapt more quickly, but a network of plants will make deliberate intelligent decisions on how individual plants will behave, perhaps overriding the individual plants' adaptation decisions?
2. No. You're saying the networked forest can make deliberate intelligent decisions, but a network of bacteria can't? What?

1. Expansion, not override. A synthesized, nanotech forest could understand the needs of the humanoid community that lives next door in a way that our current forests cannot. Again I use the example of elves and other sylvan/fey creatures from fantasy.
2. There are degrees of intelligence, you know? Chimps and dolphins are intelligent, that doesn't make them totally free of instinctive programming the way we are. (Hell, even we aren't free of instinct.)

Okay, really done now. (for awhile)

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 11 mai 2012 - 03:36 .

[RainbowDazed]

akenn312 wrote...

Are we not speculating? Those speculations are great but that's just made up by you and we don't know what would happen. All nano machines and magic abilities aside the reasons synthesis is the worst IMO is this quote antares_sublight wrote on Shepard and how he would beat the Reapers.

"I won't sacrifice the soul of our species to do it" - Shepard

This one quote sums up why Shepard is fighting against the Reapers and what they are doing to the galaxy. They are forcing people into an ascension and a their outlook of a utopia and perfection without anyone being given a choice in the matter. They are bending the inherent natural evolution of the organic and synthetic species to achieve this goal.

No matter if their goal is to make a new "Eden" or create the perfect organic/synthetic being they do not have any right to do it. Who are they to say how we need to evolve? Shepard is the basic martyr for free will and choice and the strength to hold on to that right. If we wanted to become perfect then we just need to submit to the Reapers and let them harvest us, or save the Reapers the trouble and just make everyone into a cyborg on our terms.

Shepard was fighting to gain back the natural cycle of the universe without any tampering from the Reapers or anyone else. Fighting to stay the way you are with the constant temptation to enhance yourself to perfection has one of the deepest meanings in this story. Sure the Illusive Man brought Shepard back with synthetic parts but Shepard was strong enough not to allow that to change who he was. Sure Miranda was perfect genetically but Shepard helped her realize none of the enhancements made her better than anyone else and that she was more than perfection. Sure the Genophage stopped the Krogan menace but was that right to play god and take away their ability to reproduce to save us from a possible threat?

I think for Bioware to make synthesis the best option for the game really shocked me. It's basically saying to us conforming and giving in as long as you can survive or get ahead is okay now. Maybe that is what they are really trying to say here. Sure with synthesis there is potential for no sickness, we might live for hundreds of years all in one consciousness and in a new utopia of technology and awareness with boundless possibilities. But really what was wrong with being a human, Turian, Geth, Salarin, Krogan or Asari in the first place?

Well said.

On my first time entering the Citadel I chose synthesis because it allowed every living being to continue living without any control needed. But I couldn't make the same decision again, and the thing preventing that is the leap of fate it requires. I am not ready to believe that the information reaper-child gives me is valid. With the limited amount of information given about the consequences of the different choices, the only logical decision for me is to choose to destroy the synthetic life. Sorry EDI and Geth, your sacrifice will be remembered.

If more information about what synthesis means would be given before making the decision, I could concider it. But that would mean receiving an extensive information-package about what I'm about to sign into that I can run through with my science and legal teams at Normandy.

DISCLAIMER: The ending still sucks as much it ever did.

[arc_gabriel_]

All choices don't matter for the option synthesis I find it just crazy to ever happen. The END of evolution? We wouldn't be able to live up with that we always need changes its the way of life. But this is a GAME we are talking about so it doesn't matter how the end comes you have three options and you can make your own choice not because everyone says you have to like the same option.