365 réponses à ce sujet

[DaJe]

@The Razman

EDI is intelligent and an ally to organics. In my playthrough the Geth and Quarians are allied and fighting together against a common threat.
The game makes it abundently clear that synthetics and organics can coexist and that synthetics once achieving true intelligence have just as much right to live.

You say we saw it happening how synthetics rise up against organics, but apparently you close your eyes from the things that go against this logic.

It is made very clear in ME2 and ME3 that the Geth acted in self defense and have no inherit desire to kill all organics.
The killing organics part was due to third party influence, just like a single charismatic person can make a large group of people hate another group of people only based on genes or blood. It is nothing limited to synthetics.

I mean god dammit the whole point of Legion, EDI and the conflict whcih you can resolve in ME3 is promoting coexistence. The ending is undoing that and there is no argument that can defend it other than "yeah uhm synthetics might end up killing organics, maybe, probably, whatever".
The ending doesn't belong into this game because it goes against it's story and premise.

It is instead undoing everything and promoting an extremely short sighted, racist and unreasonable agenda.

Is judging people because of where they come from and destroying them because of what they MIGHT do, out of prehistoric fear of the unknown really the kind of message this series deserved to end with, after teaching us the opposite?

Modifié par DaJe, 12 mai 2012 - 12:56 .

[TRUTHMACHINE]

Il Divo wrote...

The Razman wrote...

No offence, but I'm not sure you read all the post. I explained about the Geth providing evidence that we can see that the Starchild's logic may be more than conjecture.

I have read it five times now. I would not raise that question again.

The Star Child's logic has no basis as you are attempting to present it. He provides us with exactly that: nothing. No examples, no history, no rationality. There is only the claim in isolation of everything around it.

The narrative itself does not present any features inherent to the Geth or EDI which make their roles different than any organic species. EDI for example as the rogue VI is not inherently different than a one-time psycopath or Dr. Saleon, with his fetish for stealing organs. But we don't use those examples to suggest organics are "crazy" or incapable of getting along. Likewise, the Geth's ultimate reaction at the Quarians' actions is not any more unreasonable than one might expect from a slave race acting in self-defense. As the story presents it, there is nothing inherently different about these species which makes cooperation impossible.

The argument fails precisely because it relies only on inevitability, which justifies everything. It's a slippery slope. Here's another one: it's possible that aliens will appear to commit genocide on our planet and it's only possible to stop them by stockpiling nuclear warheads. Given the scale of such a threat, we should give up our daily lives to stock up on nukes for the upcoming alien invasion.

Il Divo won this argument clearly. The Razman can't bear to admit it given the time and effort he put into his post....give it up razzy

[Il Divo]

Amioran wrote...

War between organics cannot be prevented without whiping all of them because there's not a logical pattern in the way the wars can happen. War between organics and AI can be, destroying those capable of creating the same, it is a cyclical pattern that can be acknowledged.

Why don't you think a little on the things you are about to say? It's possible that you cannot understand the difference?

And then you blame the SC for faulty logic, LOL.

No it's not. There is no pattern. The cycle is not organics coming into conflict with synthetics. The cycle is the Reapers murdering all organics to prevent synthetics from wiping them out. This does not indicate that the Reapers wait until we develop synthetics to inititate the cycle.The Catalyst does not tell us that there is any empirical evidence of a pattern in our conflicts with synthetics.

Please think before posting, in the future. I've noticed this trend too much with you lately.

Modifié par Il Divo, 12 mai 2012 - 01:42 .

[iamthedave3]

Yeah, hate to say it Razman but your arguments of late come with the sound effect of a deflating balloon.

[Il Divo]

Amioran wrote...

What the hell does this have to do with SC logic is beyond me.

The fact that there are many motives why organics can whipe themselves out doesn't invalidate the necessity to remove one of them, the one that can be logically prevented by simply recognizing the patterns (differently from many others).

Pretty straightforward: 

1) Organic species can cause their own destruction, without synthetics.
2) The Catalyst claims that his actions are to prevent synthetics from ever wiping out organics.
3) Why are synthetics his primary motivation if 1) is true.

And as above, no patterns. You are imagining the pattern into existence when it's never established. The Catalyst's reasoning is not clearly based empirical evidence. If I say to you "All Republics will eventually become corrupt", that does not mean I have observed a pattern of Republics falling into corruption. And that's literally all the Catalyst gives us on the topic of synthetics.

I still don't understand how you people reason, really. You want to be right and in to do so you say things that have no meaning at all. You don't either spend 1 minute to try to comprehend really what you are about to say and ponder about it a little more.

I often see people on here say the same about you. It probably has something to do with the way you conduct yourself.

Modifié par Il Divo, 12 mai 2012 - 01:54 .

[Il Divo]

Veneke wrote...

Tigerman123 wrote...

Not really sure what the point of this organics wipe each other out tangent is; the reapers will always come approximately every 50k years to wipe the slate clean, a single species can never become preponderant enough to stymie the development of life on all possible worlds

Well, I believe the idea is that if organics are unable to wipe each other out then only synthetics can do this then there's some basis for the Reapers logic. However, if it was the case that organics could wipe each other out with technology before they reached the stage when the technological singularity occurs then the Reapers' logic (at least the expected outcomes of the application of their logic) is flawed, which is immediately relevant to the OP.
 
The thing is, it doesn't need to be a single species to become completely preponderant. A scenario merely needs to occur where a threat reaches the same stage and thinking as the Reapers apparently expect of synthetic life. The Reapers are meant to turn up to prevent that stage being reached. Why they've chosen to ignore the possibility of organic life reaching that stage on a similar basis is unclear.


I've suspicions as to why this is the case but it's all speculative and I refuse to guess as to the intentions of the game designers.

You've put it far better than I did.

[glacier1701]

 There are other arguments that show that the 'logic' behind the Catalyst is flawed. Basically the idea of technological singularity rests upon 2 assumptions both of which have proven not to be true even on Earth. Firstly it assumes that ALL forms of technology are investigated and improved upon. And secondly that civilisation actually embraces the "Western' concept (that is our own present day concept) that technology is something worthwhile.

 We all know that many areas of technology and science are not pursued due to ethical, moral, religious and legal considerations. Yet is it possible that one of those areas is a 'must have' for technological singularity to occur? We do not know and as such we cannot say that such a thing is possible until it has actually been observed so that the things needed for it can be determined. Speculation is all we can do about this particular topic even if it is posited as a reason behind the actions of the Catalyst. Within the ME universe we have not been shown enough to suspect that such a thing occurs and that the Catalyst is afraid that this is what organics will achieve.

 Perhaps the more important point that flaws the Catalyst logic is that the pursuit of technology is not a given. It is a result of our own Western styled society and has been imposed on most of Earth for the very simple reason that those who did not accept it were 'conquered' (not necessarily by military force). Even so there are belief systems that adequately explain things such that technology is not needed or even indulged in. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that had things worked out differently one of these systems might have been dominant today and there would be no 'technological' advancement as we understand the concept. Such a civilisation would not approach technological singularity because it is not involved in technology!!! Again within the ME universe there is some slight evidence to suggest that the Asari with their biotics would not have needed technology because biotics could do MOST things that technology was initially used for when it 'began' to be used on Earth. It seems that the Protheans may have kickstarted the Asari into using technology rather than biotics.

 Anyways it would seem that a MUCH easier path for the Catalyst to follow is to send agents to ANY budding civilisation and introduce to them belief systems that eschew the use of technology. The fact that the Catalyst does not even consider this particular course of action proves that it is a construct/machine which is nowhere near godlike, lacks information on a very basic level (perhaps due to its creators) and is inherently flawed because it cannot learn. It is FLAWED by its own nature and any reasoning it uses is also flawed no matter how it is packaged or presented or justified. The reasoning of the Catalyst may not be flawed to itself but because new facts cannot be added or considered it still nonetheless flawed.

Modifié par glacier1701, 12 mai 2012 - 02:28 .

[Amioran]

Veneke wrote...
Are you seriously trying to argue that there's no connection between the potential for created A.I. to destroy all organic life and the potential for other advanced technology to destroy all organic life?

Other advanced technology can do so only indirectly, since, differently from AI, they don't posses an individuality.

Veneke wrote...
The Catalyst's logic is not based on cyclical patterns repeating. It is artificially creating it's own pattern which is only cyclical because of its own actions. There is nothing to suggest that created A.I. will destroy all organic life - the proof being in the existence of organic life after the introduction of advanced A.I. systems, even the Reapers are evidence of this. In fact, it is impossible for the Catalysts logic to be based on cyclical patterns repeating because if it was correct, the pattern couldn't repeat.

The Reapers have not direct approaches with organics. They live their own lifes, separated from them, differently from an AI created by organics and sharing resources (of whatever type). If there's separateness there's no conflict (this, btw, is included in one of the choices, destruction, that methaphorcally applies this concept).

As for the Reapers creating their own patterns, that's not true, because they have seen the thing behave this way for cycles and cycles, hence why they developed their solution to the problem. They have an ampler view than organics in the thing, simply because organics know only what it happens in their cycle, they have not memory of what happened before.

Veneke wrote...
It isn't cyclical though. It's a potential effect and the effect it is trying to stop is could never have happened before, because if it did there wouldn't be anyone in the Mass Effect Universe.

Why you say "it could never have happened before"? From where did you take this thing? On the contrary it is much more probable that the Reapers and the Catalyst have seen this happen in cycles after cycles before, and they developed a solution. It seems to me, in fact, that this behaviour is implied in the narrative.

It is you, as Shepard and as organics that were not destroyed in the older cycle that have no memory of this happening, but it is not said it didn't happen (all the contrary, in fact).

The logic of order is always to estabilish a solution based on cyclical patterns repeating. The Catalyst does this.

Veneke wrote...
With regards the crossing the street analogy. The solution the Reapers proposed is basically to cut off that person's legs. Yeah, it'll stop it alright - but it is completely disproportionate and doesn't make any sense when you view it in the light of the dozens (hundreds, thousands?) of other ways in which all organic life could equally be wiped out and which aren't prevented.

No, the solution of the Catalyst is not breaking the legs, there's no analogy at all between the two things. Destroying the legs would be all another thing, in the Catalyst terms it would be like whiping out something pertaining to all the organics, as the brain, so that they couldn't do create AI anymore. The solution of the Catalyst doesn't pertain to every organic, differently from something as that.

As for "other ways to destroy oneself" again, if there's no cyclical pattern there's no way to prevent them. You cannot prevent something you don't have any basis on which to forecast the way it will behave.

[Amioran]

Il Divo wrote...
Pretty straightforward: 

1) Organic species can cause their own destruction, without synthetics.

As I said, completely irrelevant. The important thing here is if the thing can be prevented or not. Preventing something from happening if you can it doesn't invalidate the fact that doing so you cannot prevent everything from happening.

It is a completely non sequitur. Refer to my analogy of crossing the street vs. dying.

Il Divo wrote...
2) The Catalyst claims that his actions are to prevent synthetics from ever wiping out organics.
3) Why are synthetics his primary motivation if 1) is true.

Because they have seen it happen cycle after cycle and it is a thing that has a pattern. There could be things that are either more dangerous, but since they cannot estabilish a pattern they cannot prevent them.

Il Divo wrote...
And as above, no patterns. You are imagining the pattern into existence when it's never established. The Catalyst's reasoning is not clearly based empirical evidence. If I say to you "All Republics will eventually become corrupt", that does not mean I have observed a pattern of Republics falling into corruption. And that's literally all the Catalyst gives us on the topic of synthetics.

It is implied in the narrative that the Catalyst has seen this happen cycle after cycle and it has developed a solution to the same.

I often see people on here say the same about you. It probably has something to do with the way you conduct yourself.

Or maybe with the fact that you people pretend to be more "logical" when you cannot either think for 1 minute to what you are about to say before saying it.

The things I'm saying here don't require a genius to understand, and yet you wrote what you wrote without either considering them.

[Il Divo]

Amioran wrote...

As I said, completely irrelevant. The important thing here is if the thing can be prevented or not. Preventing something from happening if you can it doesn't invalidate the fact that doing so you cannot prevent everything from happening.


It is a completely non sequitur. Refer to my analogy of crossing the street vs. dying.

Because they have seen it happen cycle after cycle and it is a thing that has a pattern. There could be things that are either more dangerous, but since they cannot estabilish a pattern they cannot prevent them.

I crossed out the assumption.

Now, for the rest, you can prevent actions without patterns, which you misunderstand.

Reapers: It is inevitable that organics will accidentally destroy all organic life. To prevent this, we've decided to exterminate all organics before they achieve the technology necessary to do so.

And there you go, no pattern, but a preventive solution.

It is implied in the narrative that the Catalyst has seen this happen cycle after cycle and it has developed a solution to the same.

 

No, it's not. You extrapolated that, from nothing.

The Catalyst's words: "No, you can't. Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics".

There is nothing implied about either a pattern or past civilizations. The pattern/cycle is the Reapers destroying all organics and that's all. Anything else is your personal fanfiction.

Or maybe with the fact that you people pretend to be more "logical" when you cannot either think for 1 minute to what you are about to say before saying it.

The things I'm saying here don't require a genius to understand, and yet you wrote what you wrote without either considering them.

No, the things you are saying definitely don't take a genius to understand. Or agree with. They take something much less than that.

Modifié par Il Divo, 12 mai 2012 - 02:31 .

[Amioran]

Il Divo wrote...
No it's not. There is no pattern. The cycle is not organics coming into conflict with synthetics. The cycle is the Reapers murdering all organics to prevent synthetics from wiping them out.

OMG.

NOooooooo!!!!

It's not "murdering ALL organics". It is murdering those (and only those) organics that are going to destroy every one elses with their actions. There's a world of difference between the two.

If you are really going to try to undermine the logic on a thing, the first thing to be aware of would be to really understand what you are trying to undermine above everything else, shoudn't it?

As for the pattern, there is. The Catalyst has developed a solution to the problem that repeat itself cyclically. It is implied in the narrative (as the Reapers coming every cycle of 50.000 years) and having examples of the cycle before this one and what it happened there, with the protheans having memory of the same happening in the cycle before them with others.

Il Divo wrote...
This does not indicate that the Reapers wait until we develop synthetics to inititate the cycle.The Catalyst does not tell us that there is any empirical evidence of a pattern in our conflicts with synthetics.

 
Again, it is implied in the narrative.

If I write:
Every cycle of 100 years God will appear on earth. Some profets have memory of the last time this happened, and these profets have memory of others knowing the same having happened in the past.

Do I need to specify that this is not the first time it happens? You cannot be serious.

Il Divo wrote...
Please think before posting, in the future. I've noticed this trend too much with you lately.

I think, differently from you, as you can see. Then please, stop parroting what I say to you. Develop your ways to undermine what I say, elsewhere the implied sarcasm will never work.

Modifié par Amioran, 12 mai 2012 - 02:32 .

[Il Divo]

Amioran wrote...

As for the pattern, there is. The Catalyst has developed a solution to the problem that repeat itself cyclically. It is implied in the narrative (as the Reapers coming every cycle of 50.000 years) and having examples of the cycle before this one and what it happened there, with the protheans having memory of the same happening in the cycle before them with others.

The Reapers come every 50k years to kill all advanced organics, not all organics who are embroiled in deadly civil war with synthetics. The Catalyst's claim is not built on the latter. All you're doing is confusing the narrative's cyclical pattern with your own.

Again, it is implied in the narrative.

No, it is your personal fan fiction, as I said before, to keep the narrative making sense. You are assuming something not even remotely in evidence. The Architect in the Matrix Reloaded was far more explicit about past events. And at least there he outright tells you that each previous incarnation of the Matrix has destroyed Zion. The Catalyst gives us his conclusion without a premise.

If I write:
Every cycle of 100 years God will appear on earth. Some profets have memory of the last time this happened, and these profets have memory of others knowing the same having happened in the past.

Do I need to specify that this is not the first time it happens? You cannot be serious.

You just gave the Catalyst far too much credit. All he says is the first statement. It is a claim, nothing more, and an unsubstantiated one. We don't have evidence of synthetics fighting organics in past cycles on which to go on. And no, Javik, as the "unnecessary dlc" as per Bioware does not count. The only pattern established is the destruction of all organic life, by Liara, by Vigil, and by the Reapers themselves.

Modifié par Il Divo, 12 mai 2012 - 02:38 .

[xbeton0L]

onchristieroad wrote...

Ultimately the Starchild is a VI, not an AI. It can extrapolate, but not independently think. Therefore, it's logic doesn't need to necessarily make sense anyway. It can only think within the confines of the information it was originally given.
As such, I like to think it was told it must *ultimately* save organic life at *any cost*. Unfortunately, it barely saves it, at an astronomical cost: however, this imbalance doesn't matter to a non-sentient construct. It cannot comprehend that 'extinction is preferable to submission', as it wasn't provided with this criteria, and cannot come up with it itself.

The worst thing about the ending isn't the Starchild's logic: it's Shepard's willingness to accept it.

Isn't that a lot like CLU from Tron? The "Original Instructions" for his program...

Modifié par xbeton0L, 12 mai 2012 - 02:38 .

[Amioran]

Il Divo wrote...
I crossed out the assumption.

What the hell of "assumption" you are talking about?

It is all in the narrative, omg.

As I repeat:

"If I write:
Every cycle of 100 years God will appear on earth. Some prophets have memory of the last time this happened, and these prophets have memory of others knowing the same having happened in the past.

Do I need to specify that this is not the first time it happens? You cannot be serious."

But I see that since you are cornered you have to try to climb mirrors; it was to be expected.

Il Divo wrote...
Now, for the rest, you can prevent actions without patterns, which you misunderstand.

You cannot, not in the same way. The parameters are too ample.

Il Divo wrote...
Reapers: It is inevitable that organics will accidentally destroy all organic life. To prevent this, we've decided to exterminate all organics before they achieve the technology necessary to do so.

Again, it's not ALL organics.

Listen, until you don't either understand what the logic really is, and what the action really is there's no way to have a meaningful debate.

No, it's not. You extrapolated that, from nothing.

The Catalyst's words: "No, you can't. Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics".

There is nothing implied about either a pattern or past civilizations. The pattern/cycle is the Reapers destroying all organics and that's all. Anything else is your personal fanfiction.

Ah, I understand.

So the reference on them coming every 50.000 years, them having come before with the Protheans and the Protheans rembembering the same happening before, plus all the memory of the Crucible and the way the narrative referenced to all civilizations cycle after cycle adding to it are all "fanfiction".

I understand.

Are you serious or you play this absurd last card because you have nothing more to say?

No, the things you are saying definitely don't take a genius to understand. Or agree with. They take something much less than that.

As for example comprehending what the hell are you talking about before complaining?

I agree.

Modifié par Amioran, 12 mai 2012 - 02:42 .

[Amioran]

Il Divo wrote...
The Reapers come every 50k years to kill all advanced organics, not all organics who are embroiled in deadly civil war with synthetics. The Catalyst's claim is not built on the latter. All you're doing is confusing the narrative's cyclical pattern with your own.

Now you either twist what I say with what you say and mix the two?

I never said that they kill ALL organics, that's what YOU say, and it is completely wrong, btw.

I cannot understand of what you are talking about, seriously.

No, it is your personal fan fiction, as I said before, to keep the narrative making sense. You are assuming something not even remotely in evidence. The Architect in the Matrix Reloaded was far more explicit about past events. And at least there he outright tells you that each previous incarnation of the Matrix has destroyed Zion. The Catalyst gives us his conclusion without a premise.

OMG.

They say they come every 50k years in cycles.

The crucible is referenced has having been added to its construction by every civilization cycle after cycle (so implying it happened before many many times before).

The Protheans have had this happening in their cylce and they remember them coming before.

These are all references that imply that the Repears have come cycle after cycle, and it also implies, naturally (it is logical) that before this they studied the behaviour to develop a solution (and the Catalyst also says this directly, btw).

Modifié par Amioran, 12 mai 2012 - 02:48 .

[Il Divo]

Amioran wrote...

What the hell of "assumption" you are talking about?

It is all in the narrative, omg.

As I repeat:

"If I write:
Every cycle of 100 years God will appear on earth. Some profets have memory of the last time this happened, and these profets have memory of others knowing the same having happened in the past.

Do I need to specify that this is not the first time it happens? You cannot be serious."

But I see that since you are cornered you have to try to climb mirrors; it was to be expected.

The Catalyst does not have memories of past synthetic efforts at genocide, far as we can tell. All he gives us is your first sentence. Again, your assumptions.

You cannot, not in the same way. The parameters are too ample.

I just did. If I exterminate all advanced organic life once it reaches a certain level of evolution, I prevent it from destroying all organic life.

Again, it's not ALL organics.

Listen, until you don't either understand what the logic really is, and what the action really is there's no way to have a meaningful debate.

You're right. I don't understand logic because instead of simply saying "advanced species", I condensed it to "all organics".

Ah, I understand.

So the reference on them coming every 50.000 years, them having come before with the Protheans and them rembembering the same to happen before, all the memory of the Catalyst and the way it referenced to all civilizations adding to it are all "fanfiction".

I understand.

Are you serious or you play the card because you have nothing more to say?

No, I'm playing this card repeatedly because you seem unable to recognize it.

 The Catalyst gives us nothing. The Catalyst is aware of the Reapers coming every 50k years, murdering the Protheans, and whatever. What is not established by the writers is that synthetics fighting organics is a cyclical pattern with genocidal ramifications.

The fanfiction is you establishing that the Catalyst's actions are based on the patterns of synthetics fighting organics when that's not what he says. All we get is: "No, you can't. Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all life". That claim is not dependent on any kind of pattern being established.

Modifié par Il Divo, 12 mai 2012 - 02:47 .

[Il Divo]

Amioran wrote...

OMG.

They say they come every 50k years in cycles.

I bolded it. I underlined it. And I italicized it.

1) Now let me make this clear, since you're having such difficulty: where did I, at any point, say there is not a cycle?

This is established. Sovereign says it, Liara says it, Vigil says it, the Catalyst references it.

The Cycle is that every 50k years, the Reapers return to the galaxy to wipe out all advanced life. Good? Good.

2) Now, here's the real tough part:

The Catalyst says "Without us to stop it, synthetics would wipe out all organics".

3) Now, notice the dichotomy here: the cycle is the Reapers destroying organics. Not "organics who create synthetics".

The cyclical pattern you imagine happening is not the one told by the story. Far as we know, the Catalyst is not waiting to see whether synthetics attempt technological singularity. We don't even know if he saw synthetics come close to wiping out organics. He's not even waiting to see if we create synthetics. He's simply established that to prevent x, he's doing y, even without any evidence of x.

His claim is simply that synthetics will wipe out all organics. His solution does not indicate that he is waiting for your fanfiction version of the cycle to commence.

Modifié par Il Divo, 12 mai 2012 - 02:54 .

[Amioran]

Il Divo wrote...
You're right. I don't understand logic because instead of simply saying "advanced species", I condensed it to "all organics".

Because they are the same thing, I understand...

Oh, well.

 The Catalyst gives us nothing. The Catalyst is aware of the Reapers coming every 50k years, murdering the Protheans, and whatever. What is not established by the writers is that synthetics fighting organics is a cyclical pattern with genocidal ramifications.

You cannot be serious, are you?

That's the way they behave and they tell you directly. Why they shouldn't have done the same way before? What you say makes no sense at all, do you get it? Why they should tell you a lie? For what motive?

It is obvious that they developed a solution to a problem, as the Catalyst told you. The Protheans have also memory of the same happening to them (as explained by Javik). You get to see the same pattern happening in your cycle.

You can estabilish that this is what happened before and the Catalyst developing a solution to the same, you don't need to have the authors tell you, it is implied in the narrative (in the way the struggle with the AIs is developed in the cycle you are in, in the way it was in the previous cycle and from what the Catalyst tells you).

And, btw, this, again, is part of the order vs. chaos theme, and this is another motivation why they need not to tell you, it's all there.

Il Divo wrote...
The fanfiction is you establishing that the Catalyst's actions are based on the patterns of synthetics fighting organics when that's not what he says. All we get is: "No, you can't. Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all life". That claim is not dependent on any kind of pattern being established.

Again, it is implied.

I understand that you want to have a point so you have to deny it at all costs, but what you say it is really climbling to mirrors.

You see it happen in your cycle, you know it happened in the cycle before, the Catalyst tell you he developed a solution to a problem and that's why they come every cycle. You know they come every cycle and they have come in the past.

You don't need authors to tell you that the same exact thing has happened every cycle in the past and that's why the Reapers exists. It is obvious that's so in the way the narrative is implemented and developed. Why elsewhere the Catalyst would have developed a solution to a problem that never existed? Why the Catalyst should come every 50.000 years? (If he wanted to just kill he could whipe out all organics without problems, isn't it? Why leave some alone without a motive?).

The only way you can think something as this is believing that the Catalysts lies (also if there's neither a logical motivation of this happening), but this interpretation is proved wrong by what it happens in the past and present cycle, that demonstrates that what the Catalyst says it is true (at last empyrically). So, since it happened in the present and in the past, and it is either a thing having to do with parameters that can represents themselves (and you have two evidences of this happening) you have no basis at all to believe something different and to imply something different.

Modifié par Amioran, 12 mai 2012 - 03:08 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

Okay, first off, please everyone stop saying that the Reapers are here to "murder all organics". That is completely and utterly false. The Reapers are here to "preserve those organics advanced enough to create synthetic life capable of wiping out the galaxy - through assimilation into Reaper form".

I mean, that's perfectly well stated in the game, so that's something we need to agree on as fact, if we're going to continue having a discussion.

Secondly, the Geth and EDI prove that, while THOSE SPECIFIC instances may not go around murdering all organic life that organic life is CAPABLE of creating synthetics advanced enough to go around murdering all organic life - the Reapers are stepping in to clip this limb off the banzai tree before the whole tree withers away and dies.

Thirdly, you're not supposed to like the starchild's logic. You're not. You're not supposed to agree with it. This is an ancient machine/vi/organic/thing that took the circumstances of what happened in it's cycle and MASSIVELY overreacted. If you agree with its logic, then... just wait around for five or so minutes, let the Reapers win, and boom there's your ending. But the fact of the matter is that from a certain, albeit extremely twisted, point of view, the starchild's logic makes perfect sense.

The whole point of the game, and the trilogy as a whole, is simply to prove him wrong. And.. congratulations. You do that. He NEVER conceived of organics banding together to fight back, he never conceived of an instance where the Reapers would be defeated, he never conceived of a moment where there would be someone standing there, on the Crucible, ready to wipe out the Reapers - just because he has a very narrow, simplistic point of view doesn't mean it doesn't make logical sense.

[Grimwick]

Amioran wrote...

 The Catalyst gives us nothing. The Catalyst is aware of the Reapers coming every 50k years, murdering the Protheans, and whatever. What is not established by the writers is that synthetics fighting organics is a cyclical pattern with genocidal ramifications.

You cannot be serious, are you?

That's the way they behave and they tell you directly. Why they shouldn't have done the same way before? What you say makes no sense at all, do you get it? Why they should tell you a lie? For what motive?

It is obvious that they developed a solution to a problem, as the Catalyst told you. The Protheans have also memory of the same happening to them (as explained by Javik). You get to see the same happening in your cycle.

You can estabilish that this is what happened before and the Catalyst developing a solution to the same, you don't need to have the authors tell you, it is implied in the narrative (in the way the struggle with the AIs is developed in the cycle you are in, in the way it was in the previous cycle and from what the Catalyst tells you).

And, btw, this, again, is part of the order vs. chaos theme, and this is another motivation why they need not to tell you, it's all there.

Straw man - the cycle of Reaper extermination =/= the cycle of the creation of synthetics will always lead to genocidal war..
I believe you are arguing against the wrong thing here.

The overall problem is with the solution of the SC. We have to make assumptions here that the SC even has any evidence at all. We also have to assume that the evidence is valid/consistent and is of any actual value. These assumptions are implied, but that is a problem in itself: that it needs to be implied in the first place.
Making decisions on these assumptions is illogical from the start. If we have to assume anything as ridiculous as "the SC has evidence that conflict between synthetics and organics, that will exterminate all organic life in the galaxy, is 100% inevitable"  then we have broken logic on our hands.

Side note here, but if it has happened before then how did the reapers come into being? Having evidence that A led to B doesn't mean we have evidence that A must also therefore lead to C. Having evidence that a synthetic/organic conflict occured  =/= evidence that a synthetic/organic conflict will 100% lead to the extinction of all organic life.

Also nothing to do with Chaos vs Order - (aside from them both being foundless gibberish) nothing like that needs to be explained here, simply the logic of the arguments of the SC. Chaos vs Order doesn't strengthen the logic in any way.

Modifié par Grimwick, 12 mai 2012 - 03:23 .

[TheRealJayDee]

Okay, let's be clear here: the Catalyst cannot possibly have wittnessed the total annihilation of ALL organic life through synthetics. It's what he believes will happen and what he is trying to prevent, but he cannot have experienced it before, and certainly not numerous times. In the timeline of Mass Effect there IS organic life and there always has been, and all we have to sugest there won't be because of the threat of superior synthetic beings is the Catalyst's word.

Maybe there have been genocides committed by synthetics in past cycles (for which we have no evidence but the Catalysts's word), but what Catalyst ultimately tries to prevent definitely has never happened. So all of the countless genocides he's responsible for have been committed because of what he believes to be inevitable.

[Grimwick]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Okay, let's be clear here: the Catalyst cannot possibly have wittnessed the total annihilation of ALL organic life through synthetics. It's what he believes will happen and what he is trying to prevent, but he cannot have experienced it before, and certainly not numerous times. In the timeline of Mass Effect there IS organic life and there always has been, and all we have to sugest there won't be because of the threat of superior synthetic beings is the Catalyst's word.

Maybe there have been genocides committed by synthetics in past cycles (for which we have no evidence but the Catalysts's word), but what Catalyst ultimately tries to prevent definitely has never happened. So all of the countless genocides he's responsible for have been committed because of what he believes to be inevitable.

Yup, it's like systematically commiting genocide on an entire ethnic minority simply because you THINK they might attack you... somewhere hundreds of years in the future.

Completely unjustified and disgusting.

[Kaelef]

The thread's title should really be changed to "Let there be much more said about faulty logic".

So faulty.