528 réponses à ce sujet

[antares_sublight]

[quote]Optimystic_X wrote...

[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.
[/quote]
Who said I was referring to individual plants? I was responding to you attacking someone for somehow holding back plants from having awareness.

[quote]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]
Responding point-by-point is not ignoring. Don't ignore valid counterarguments and act like we're just not listening.

[quote]
[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]
Those cells are not capable of surviving outside the whole, nor were nanomachines commissioned by a central development system as cells are through RNA/DNA. Not the same concept at all.

[quote]
[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]
My point was not everything can just use photosynthesis or some other standardized energy intake method.

[quote]
[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?
[/quote]
Really? That's your response? You're saying that nanomachines are introduced into already living organisms and enable intelligent decisions to be made separately from their organic hosts. Cells are primary components that are not separable from the body. Genes are blueprints for how cells will be developed. I'm asking what is to stop these foreign nanomachines from networking together, just them, and overtaking the organic host and controlling it fully?


[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.[/quote]
So then you're affirming my statement that a pure synthetic still holds a significant advantage over hybrid organic-synthetics. So synthesis has not actually solved the problem at all.


[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.[/quote]
You're the one not listening. Option C only exists for the entities in existence AT THE TIME OF SYNTHESIS. Pure synthetics can still be created, so your option C is actually:
Organic-synthetics: 50; Synthetic-organics: 50; Pure synthetics: 100. See the problem?

Modifié par antares_sublight, 11 mai 2012 - 03:48 .

[ReXspec]

Eain wrote...

ZIPO396 wrote...

Gen Petitt wrote...

ZIPO396 wrote...

Gen Petitt wrote...

Eain wrote...

Cribbian wrote...
"No soul, replaced by tech" - Mordin

Well admittedly I always thought that was a silly line anyway. Souls don't exist, so tech can't make them disappear.

Right sure they don't you are what they call "atheist" are you not?

A soul doesn't neccerily need to relate to religion. A soul can be a number of things. I'd say the Geth have a soul but not in the same way a soul in religion implies.

It was a mere question that I wanted an answer to and no I will try and sway him from his thought becuase it is not my problem.

Oh no I'm trying to support you. Just from a different direction. He says they don't period I'm arguing they do as are you. Just in different ways.

There's no explanatory power to the concept of soul. It's an empty term. Everything the soul is supposed to be responsible for can be explained through neurology and analyzing brain processes. I'm not an atheist, I'm a materialist, meaning I believe all answers to our questions can be found in physical matter and physical processes. The soul as a concept is just magic. I don't believe in magic.

And what is magic but forces we don't understand yet mister scientist?  A few years ago, there was an image... a hubble space telescope image (I forget the link or the source) that looked into supposedly "empty" space for weeks on end.  When astronomers analyzed the image, they found galaxies that were far more ancient than should actually exist in this universe--not to mention superclusters and galaxies that were five times larger then modern physics could explain.

You are basing wild assumption on logic that is based on a pre-emptive answer.  In your case the phrase is, "Well if there is no proof, it doesn't exist."  So, my counter to you is, "Why should the lack of evidence, be an indicator that something doesn't exist?"    Astronomers were under the assumption the aformentioned galaxies and superclusters could not exist because they couldn't see them.  The image shattered that notion.  Saying something as subjective and abstract as the soul does not exist, is like saying quarks inside an atom don't exist because we can't see it.

Souls exist--the exact definition of a soul can be argued until the end of time, but what doesn't exist is Bioware's poorly executed idea of "synthesis."  It's little more then narratively incoherent trash, littered with plot holes and unanswered questions.

Modifié par ReXspec, 11 mai 2012 - 11:39 .

[antares_sublight]

Optimystic_X wrote...

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)

1. And in the case where environmental pressure would normally cause one adaptation, but "needs of the humanoid community" would dictate a different adaptation instead? That's overriding.
2. Are you saying a tree is more intelligent than bacteria?

[akenn312]

RainbowDazed wrote...

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.

I chose control my first play-thorugh because I didn't want to play god and not give anyone a choice changing their DNA. I already had to go round and round with that since I romanced Miranda, so I thought she and everyone else would never forgive me for playing Saren/Dr. Moreau/Miranda's Daddy on them Couldn't pick destroy because it's counter productive. I end the Geth war and fixed the unshackled AI problem just to start it all over again. So I thought it was the lesser of the two evils. But then after I thought about it I realized, why would Shepard, after going round and round with the Illusive man about how trying to control the Reapers would not work and we would ultimately be corrupted, he then just takes the Reaper Prince for his word and does it anyway.

Later I tried Destroy but then that still felt bad. So again I hate them all with a little more hate with Synthesis.

Now I come to the conclusion it might be possibly just the order that is the problem. Make destroy the best ending and with a high EMS the Geth and EDI survive and cut scenes of hope for the future & Shepard lives. Low EMS Earth destroyed Geth and EDI destroyed, visions of possible unchecked AI's coming back, Shepard is dead.

Control the middle ground with a high EMS showing Shepard destroying the Reapers then ascends to whatever plane to die in peace, low Shepard being corrupted becoming the Catalyst and visions of Reapers again.

Worst Synthesis, with a high EMS everybody is confused shocked and appalled but later visions of a possible Utopia. Low EMS everybody is confused shocked and appalled and an image of Saren laughing.

Just a thought.

It's just weird how Bioware has started making games where they start out with one message or game mechanic in the first game then completly changes it to something totally different and out of left field in the end. Dragon Age 2 comes to mind.

Modifié par akenn312, 11 mai 2012 - 04:45 .

[YNation913]

I never thought plants in synthesis would be gaining intelligence; plants generally contribute things to their ecosystems that intellegent life then makes use of. Like in addition to releasing oxygen into the atmosphere, maybe now trees also house servers sort of like geth hubs. This notion kinda makes me laugh but hey...

[AlexMBrennan]

Simples. You said it yourself

Its the next step in evolution

This is utter nonsense. I'd have preferred BS, but I'm assuming that that term would be censored. It relies on space magic that comes out of nowhere. The very term "next step in evolution" makes no sense because that's not how evolution works. At no point is it hinted at that something like this is even possible.

[Before you get started - the "Mass Effect" is central to the setting. It's not true in the real world but you're told about it in the prologue. You are told about how it works in the Codex. You see it working all the time. It's well done space magic. Synthesis space magic... not so much. So nice try, but try again]

What's worse, it doesn't even address the problem (either the Reapers or the Singularity). It's clear how controlling the Reapers would stop them from killing us (because you're controlling them, duh). It's clear how destroying the Reapers would stop them (because they're destroyed, duh). It's not clear why making everyone a hybrid would stop them - you just have to take Godchild's word for it.

Neither is there any reason to think that it would address the singularity - you have to take Godchild's word for it again. To be fair, none of the alternatives address singularity either - but they're not meant to do so. Destroy and Control are basically "Screw this Singularity BS, we're making our own future".

Note: Shepard has no reason to believe anything Godchild says.

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 11 mai 2012 - 04:45 .

[Taboo]

I'm still confused as to WHY anyone believes they have the right to interfere in such matters. If we are going to be wiped out by a synthetic singularity then so be it. At what point was I supposed to anything but destory the Reapers? All three choices provide a method for stopping them but only one ensures a return to scratch.

I essentially have to decide that killing thousands is better than rewriting the entire galaxy against their will. In that case, it appears that quite a few people are going to be wiping out the geth.

Synthesis makes no sense scientifically, nor does anything the Starchild says have any basis in a scientific argument if he cannot provide two things.

A: How he arrived at this conclusion
B: The evidence he has to support his claim

He has no more credence to me than someone who says they saw bigfoot.

[Peranor]

TSA_383 wrote...

"Why hello there good sir, I've been commanding the reapers, your enemy for the past several years as they attempt to wipe out all organic life. I'm now going to stand here and explain why it would be a really bad idea to destroy them and you're going to believe EVERY WORD I SAY"
Yeah, doesn't seem a smart idea to me.

[frylock23]

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.

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.

*snort* I'm the bad guy? But I'm not the one who wants to play universal God here and override everyone's freewill in one feel swoop wiping out all organic and synthetic life to create some kind of artificial bastardized life.

But you go one believing that when the potato field knows that we want to enslave it to provide sustenance for us it'll be all hunky dory with that.

Instead of the great Potato Blight, we'll soon be fighting the Great Potato Rebellions. Mark my words, and they'll starve us all to death. Don't worry though. Just like Shepard's choice, it'll all be in the name of the Greater Good. You can take that comfort with you as you starve to death. Our ultimate fate will of course rest with the intergalactic network of nanite overlords to decide.

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.

Oh, I'm a fantasy fan, too. In fact, I have more fantasy than I do sci-fi, but this is sci-fi, and it shouldn't suddenly become fantasy in the last 10 minutes for no apparent reason.

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.

I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from. I have a book in my library about what happens when you hybridize organics with nanites ... it doesn't turn out well. It's a book called Midnight. You should check it out. Everyone in a small town forcibly gets a nanotech microcomputer injected into their body ... just like synthesis. It ought to be right up your alley. It's not fantasy though, or even sci-fi. It's actually horror.

[Tom Lehrer]

frylock23 wrote...

I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from. I have a book in my library about what happens when you hybridize organics with nanites ... it doesn't turn out well. It's a book called Midnight. You should check it out. Everyone in a small town forcibly gets a nanotech microcomputer injected into their body ... just like synthesis. It ought to be right up your alley. It's not fantasy though, or even sci-fi. It's actually horror.

Sounds like an interesting read. Whose the author? 

[Omega2079]

EvilMind wrote...
...It is forced, but its a good thing...

and

EvilMind wrote...
Its the next step in evolution

No, it's bad. It's inherantly authoritarian in nature, and a decision that cannot be made by one person in an informed way.

It's just like planned economies, roads paved with good intention, all leading to hell.

Modifié par Omega2079, 11 mai 2012 - 05:58 .

[Taboo]

 Authoratarianism

[Konfined]

Tom Lehrer wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from. I have a book in my library about what happens when you hybridize organics with nanites ... it doesn't turn out well. It's a book called Midnight. You should check it out. Everyone in a small town forcibly gets a nanotech microcomputer injected into their body ... just like synthesis. It ought to be right up your alley. It's not fantasy though, or even sci-fi. It's actually horror.

Sounds like an interesting read. Whose the author? 

Dean Koontz.

[Xellith]

ReXspec wrote...

And what is magic but forces we don't understand yet mister scientist?  A few years ago, there was an image... a hubble space telescope image (I forget the link or the source) that looked into supposedly "empty" space for weeks on end.  When astrologists analyzed the image, they found galaxies that were far more ancient than should actually exist in this universe--not to mention superclusters and galaxies that were five times larger then modern physics could explain.

You are basing wild assumption on logic that is based on a pre-emptive answer.  In your case the phrase is, "Well if there is no proof, it doesn't exist."  So, my counter to you is, "Why should the lack of evidence, be an indicator that something doesn't exist?"    Astrologists were under the assumption the aformentioned galaxies and superclusters could not exist because they couldn't see them.  The image shattered that notion.  Saying something as subjective and abstract as the soul does not exist, is like saying quarks inside an atom don't exist because we can't see it.

Souls exist--the exact definition of a soul can be argued until the end of time, but what doesn't exist is Bioware's poorly executed idea of "synthesis."  It's little more then narratively incoherent trash, littered with plot holes and unanswered questions.

Any superior piece of technology would be indistinguishable from magic to a lesser intellegence.  The hubble image is the Ultra Deep Field.  And its astonomers not astrologists.  Astrologists do horoscopes. (lol)

"Well if there is no proof, it doesn't exist." is a valid skeptical way of viewing the universe.  You cannot say "Why should the lack of evidence, be an indicator that something doesn't exist?".  That is a retarded argument.  "You cant prove the universe isnt trapped inside an alien testicle therefore it is!".  You see what I did there?

Souls exist?  Seriously? Says you.  You say a soul exists therefore it exists?  Am I getting that right?  You say souls exist I say they dont. Therefore they both exist and do not exist at the same time?  Incorrect.  Souls existing is either fact or fiction.  Belief in it doesnt make it so.  Evidence makes it so.

Black holes were theorised to exist within scientific models.  They were asumed to exist from evidence.  Now we have proof.   At one time the world thought it was the center of the solar system.  Did belief play a part in this?  Did people believing that they were at the center of the solar system make it true?  No it did not.

Science can obtain facts about the universe by using infered knowledge.  Dark Energy. Do we see it?  No.  Can we taste it?  No.  Can we touch it?  No.  How do we know it exists?  Because we can see its effects on the universe.  We dont speculate if it exists.  We KNOW it exists.  How it got there and what its actually comprised of are unknowns - but people are working on it.

Whether the soul exists or not cannot be said with certainty.  Anyone who states facts without actual information on the topic are ignorant.

Reality does not require your belief for it to be true and it does not bend to what you want to be true.  This is what seperates reality from your delusions.  Until something is proven then you have no leg to stand on.

[MaleficoKelpie]

I did choose synthesis too
and i will choose against if i could

so you're not alone. And also, this topic is not for me...

[ReXspec]

Xellith wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

And what is magic but forces we don't understand yet mister scientist?  A few years ago, there was an image... a hubble space telescope image (I forget the link or the source) that looked into supposedly "empty" space for weeks on end.  When astrologists analyzed the image, they found galaxies that were far more ancient than should actually exist in this universe--not to mention superclusters and galaxies that were five times larger then modern physics could explain.

You are basing wild assumption on logic that is based on a pre-emptive answer.  In your case the phrase is, "Well if there is no proof, it doesn't exist."  So, my counter to you is, "Why should the lack of evidence, be an indicator that something doesn't exist?"    Astrologists were under the assumption the aformentioned galaxies and superclusters could not exist because they couldn't see them.  The image shattered that notion.  Saying something as subjective and abstract as the soul does not exist, is like saying quarks inside an atom don't exist because we can't see it.

Souls exist--the exact definition of a soul can be argued until the end of time, but what doesn't exist is Bioware's poorly executed idea of "synthesis."  It's little more then narratively incoherent trash, littered with plot holes and unanswered questions.

Any superior piece of technology would be indistinguishable from magic to a lesser intellegence.  The hubble image is the Ultra Deep Field.  And its astonomers not astrologists.  Astrologists do horoscopes. (lol)

"Well if there is no proof, it doesn't exist." is a valid skeptical way of viewing the universe.  You cannot say "Why should the lack of evidence, be an indicator that something doesn't exist?".  That is a retarded argument.  "You cant prove the universe isnt trapped inside an alien testicle therefore it is!".  You see what I did there?

Souls exist?  Seriously? Says you.  You say a soul exists therefore it exists?  Am I getting that right?  You say souls exist I say they dont. Therefore they both exist and do not exist at the same time?  Incorrect.  Souls existing is either fact or fiction.  Belief in it doesnt make it so.  Evidence makes it so.

Black holes were theorised to exist within scientific models.  They were asumed to exist from evidence.  Now we have proof.   At one time the world thought it was the center of the solar system.  Did belief play a part in this?  Did people believing that they were at the center of the solar system make it true?  No it did not.

Science can obtain facts about the universe by using infered knowledge.  Dark Energy. Do we see it?  No.  Can we taste it?  No.  Can we touch it?  No.  How do we know it exists?  Because we can see its effects on the universe.  We dont speculate if it exists.  We KNOW it exists.  How it got there and what its actually comprised of are unknowns - but people are working on it.

Whether the soul exists or not cannot be said with certainty.  Anyone who states facts without actual information on the topic are ignorant.

Reality does not require your belief for it to be true and it does not bend to what you want to be true.  This is what seperates reality from your delusions.  Until something is proven then you have no leg to stand on.

You are making my argument far more convoluted, long winded, and contentious then it actually is.  Not to mention you are going off topic from the OP, so I'll answer for the sake of continuity.

All I'm saying is to keep an open mind.  Be neutral, so to speak, about whether something exists or not, regardless of the lack of physical evidence.  But regardless of whether something actually exists or not, it's still a theory--much like the dark energy THEORY.  Claiming something exists while it is still theory is wild speculation--not keeping an open mind until something such as a soul is proven true or false; that is not wild speculation.  Even the existence of a soul (despite my faith and leaning toward the concept's truth) is still theory in scientific terms, proven only through subjective forms of argument such as philosophy, human nature, religion, metaphysics and personal experience.

And yes, in essence, belief plays a strong part in science because theory's are based off of math that is full of radicals and unknowns--those who make the theory's have to either believe something exists, or something doesn't exist.

Again, all I'm saying is to keep an open mind.  Anything is possible.  Saying otherwise (and I think most people will agree with me) is exceedingly narrowminded.

P.S. Edited Previous post from "Astrologists" to "Atronomers."  I was rather sleep addled. 

Modifié par ReXspec, 12 mai 2012 - 12:05 .

[o Ventus]

Short version?

You're literally creating a new DNA with synthetics, even though synthetics don't have DNA to synthesize.

My point: It's space mumbo-jumbo that has no explanation or meaning. It's sole purpose for existing is for teh religious undertones.

Because that's what I want when I'm reading, watching, or playing something that's science fiction, is metaphysical crap.

Modifié par o Ventus, 11 mai 2012 - 11:53 .

[4ut0b4hn5child27]

i just want to said that Human Blood material is basically Liquid iron flow through our Body.

And also Our body have a conductor capability when making direct contact to the electricity

Also in several sci fi, there is human which the DNA can accept cybernetics implant

And that's why BioWare makes Synthesis, maybe can happen. We don't know yet the potentiality of our kind.

And in here the logic that I have that the Catalyst already know how to makes people body compatible with Synthethic parts.

There is still many possibility, i like the Idea of this ending though.

We havent check our body in full potentual. who knows

Synthesis is looks like we found the way make what we call technology like rocket, Radio, Speaker, PC....u know without imagination that thing that we see and hear will never happened now.

I;m starting to get the feeling that all human Fiction will become reality in the future (Rocket, Radio, speaker...etc).

Modifié par 4ut0b4hn5child27, 27 juin 2012 - 02:37 .

[cellotlix]

Cribbian wrote...

"No soul, replaced by tech" - Mordin

As far as I'm concerned, we have a winner right here. The pursuit of perspective and growth is what makes us ALIVE, and sythesis robs us of that pursuit. If forces a final solution on all sentient life for the sake of an artificial peaceful future. It's repulsive. As Legion says "The geth create our own future." And we should too.

Modifié par cellotlix, 27 juin 2012 - 02:44 .

[Major Crackhead]

on the fact of the Destroy ending being the most popular. I'd like to do the Conservapedia thing and "quote mine". Yes, I'm resorting myself to the level of those deluded ****nuts.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain

[skiadopsendow]

I don't like synthesis, I think is just a bad idea, and I will always reject it.

Modifié par skiadopsendow, 23 août 2012 - 09:56 .

[Major Crackhead]

I think Control is the best ending. But Synthesis is a good ending too.

[ATiBotka]

Cribbian wrote...

"No soul, replaced by tech" - Mordin

Mordin said this about the collectors. The collectors were little more than husks.

[Ledgend1221]

With synthesis, your grass is as smart as you.
How the hell does that work.
Also, how the hell does it change DNA? You can't just change DNA.
Synthesis is just space magic.

[ATiBotka]

Ledgend1221 wrote...

With synthesis, your grass is as smart as you.
How the hell does that work.
Also, how the hell does it change DNA? You can't just change DNA.
Synthesis is just space magic.

Maybe it just modify your DNA.