365 réponses à ce sujet

[Grimwick]

Amioran wrote...

Grimwick wrote...
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.

No, it is you that don't understand that all you say it's completely irrelevant.

This is very relevant if it discredits your arguments. Debate is about the accreditation or discreditation of one's arguments. If you don't understand that then you will never be able to take part in one successfully.

And why? Implying a thing is perfectly plausibile.

Again, you are climbing mirrors to try to prove a point that's not there. You don't need to specify everything in a narrarive, especially if the explanations are perfectly implied within the narrative itself.

You get to see the problem firsthand, you know it happend in the previous cycle, so it is obvious that there's a pattern. Add to this the fact that the Catalyst tells you directly, what more do you want?

I never said everything needs to be pointed out directly in the narrative. Implications of such evidence are usually fine. But in this case, implied evidence is not enough proof of the validity of the SC's claim. Especially since all hypothetical proof that the SC might have would lead to self-contradictions or logical invalidations.

Grimwick wrote...
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.

It's not "broken logic" it is the point of view of the Catalyst. Since from many many cycles he has seen the thing happen he has assumed the point of view of the inevitability of this happening, so he has developed a solution to the problem.

Again you are missing the point. Logic is either correct or incorrect, there is no middle ground and you can 'believe' in your logic all you like, but you are wrong or you are right.

The SC may 'believe' in his logic but that doesn't mean that it is right. The logic he uses is in fact invalid and broken, which means overall - despite believing it from his point of view, and despite whatever logical steps he takes from his illogical premise  - his logic is wrong.

Grimwick wrote...
Having evidence that A led to B doesn't mean we have evidence that A must also therefore lead to C.

It doesn't matter. You don't have to agree with the point of view of the Catalyst. It is just a point of view on the matter. Another thing is saying that he has no logic on what he does.

Again, whether it is his point of view is irrelevant because the overall logic of his argument is wrong. He may have been incredibly logical, just after he made his first logical mistakes.

Don't dismiss something into irrelevance until you fully understand it.

Grimwick wrote...
Having evidence that a synthetic/organic conflict occured  =/= evidence that a synthetic/organic conflict will 100% lead to the extinction of all organic life.

Again, it is completely irrelevant if it will always happen or not. Even in the same solution developed by the Catalyst there's ineherent hope of the thing not presenting itself (elsewhere there would be no need to come in cycles to see what happens next).

The point of view of the Catalyst/Reapers it is that this thing is inevitable, but that's just a point of view in the matter, the one of order. It is not said that it will necessarily happen, but this doesn't change the logic behind the act.

Whether or not it will necessarily happen is the entire foundation of the SC's solution. The original premise is broken, based on no evidence. It is a direct result of fearful overextrapolation, possibly from some war they might have had? Who knows. All we know is that he came to invalid conclusions from his data. It's simply bad science.

Listen, could you please stop pretending to be an expert on a thing you don't know? Chaos vs. Order talks specifically about this. I understand that you know nothing about the theme but you insisting it's "gibbersih" when you don't either know of what the theme talks about it's a bit presumptuos, don't you think?

If you really did understand at last minimally something about the theme you would know how wrong you are. An example: the bible; Jehovah and the struggle between him and man has the same circumstance happen.

Oh goodness... not this again? I'm going to leave your oversized ego out of it this time.

Whether or not the themes are inconsistent or consistent with his solutions or his reasoning is completely irrelevant to the logic.

And I honestly don't care if there are any parrallels in the bible at all. Despite being a poor example of evidence of any theme, the bible has enough inconsistancies of it's own without bringing them into the argument.

On a side note, simply because 2 books share a similar parallel that doesn't give credance to either of them having a specific theme - especially one as outlandish and abstract as Chaos vs Order.

[Grimwick]

iamthedave3 wrote...

Seriously though, what you said there isn't quite true. All that would be required is for a near-miss to occur. Something like Shodan out of System Shock 2 where she comes close to being able to rewrite the fabric of the entire universe. I think that's what happens. Been a long time. It was bad juju, I remember that much.

So the event would not need to have happened in order for their to be justification to take steps to prevent it, it would just need to come very close to happening. Perhaps the Reapers of today fought off the reapers of their own cycle, or the metaphorical equivalent.

For example, it's established that AI research is illegal, and those laws are passed and enforced on comparitively - given the scale of the Reaper cycle I mean - minor evidence.

Imagine if the Reaper version of a rogue AI was eradicating entire planets and reducing them to atoms. One would probably be alarmed and wish to prevent this happening again. Did that happen? Maybe? But it wouldn't need the AI to win for the survivors to decide 'right then. That wasn't fun. Let's make sure we don't do this dance again, eh?'.

The problem with that evidence is that it is pure overextrapolation. It's trying to apply something you have seen to incredible extremes. Simply because synthetic species X nearly killed all of, or killed many hundreds of organics doesn't mean that synthetic species Y will certainly kill EVERYTHING.

It's poor science, it's like having data saying that in some cases caffeine can help cure brain cancer, then claiming that 'caffeine cures brain cancer in 100% of cases'. It's simply invalid.

Making research into AI is however justified. they have seen that the invention of synthetics is potentially dangerous, that it has killed many people before. Therefore it would be wise to stop people from doing it in order to reduce the risk.

It is not wise, however to start killing organics in order to stop this - that is counterproductive with the information we are given.

[Amioran]

Grimwick wrote...
It's not irrelevant. At all.

You claim the SC has sufficient evidence to back up his claims?
Well the only sufficient evidence he would have is that synthetic life completely eradicated all organic life sometime in the past - but if that was the case how were the reapers built or designed?

It is obvious that organic life has never been totally whiped out, but cycle after cycle the Catalyst has seen the possibility of this happening and having organics save themselves only under certain premises (that are those the Catalyst bring forth as "choices" in the end).

To overcome the possibility of a total eradication the Catalyst has developed a solution that elminates the problem at the root, before it even presents itself.

So, given this, what relevance it has the way the Reapers have come into being?

P.S: And, before you use the card of "assumption": A) that the organics have been whiped out fully it is an assumption the same, it is indeed illogical that the synthetics ever "won", or everything would be different.

Grimwick wrote...
You should honestly read the posts and think a bit before you post.

In fact I did and if you did the same maybe we would not be here arguing about this.

[Tirigon]

Amioran wrote...

It is obvious that organic life has never been totally whiped out, but cycle after cycle the Catalyst has seen the possibility of this happening and having organics save themselves only under certain premises (that are those the Catalyst bring forth as "choices" in the end).

Yea but there is also the possibility someone on this forum might be the evil Emperor of Mars and call an Exterminatus on Earth because he doesnt like your posts.

Does it matter? I dont think so.

[Grimwick]

Amioran wrote...

Grimwick wrote...
It's not irrelevant. At all.

You claim the SC has sufficient evidence to back up his claims?
Well the only sufficient evidence he would have is that synthetic life completely eradicated all organic life sometime in the past - but if that was the case how were the reapers built or designed?

It is obvious that organic life has never been totally whiped out, but cycle after cycle the Catalyst has seen the possibility of this happening and having organics save themselves only under certain premises (that are those the Catalyst bring forth as "choices" in the end).

As Tirigon has adequately pointed out:

Possibility =/= Certainty

Actions based on the certainty of a given outcome from this possibility are completely unjustified.

[Sal86]

Amioran wrote...

Grimwick wrote...
It's not irrelevant. At all.

You claim the SC has sufficient evidence to back up his claims?
Well the only sufficient evidence he would have is that synthetic life completely eradicated all organic life sometime in the past - but if that was the case how were the reapers built or designed?

It is obvious that organic life has never been totally whiped out, but cycle after cycle the Catalyst has seen the possibility of this happening and having organics save themselves only under certain premises (that are those the Catalyst bring forth as "choices" in the end).

To overcome the possibility of a total eradication the Catalyst has developed a solution that elminates the problem at the root, before it even presents itself.

So, given this, what relevance it has the way the Reapers have come into being?

P.S: And, before you use the card of "assumption": A) that the organics have been whiped out fully it is an assumption the same, it is indeed illogical that the synthetics ever "won", or everything would be different.

Grimwick wrote...
You should honestly read the posts and think a bit before you post.

In fact I did and if you did the same maybe we would not be here arguing about this.

Eliminating the problem at it's root, before it happens is the same circular logic that the yo dawg meme is based on. If you eliminate a problem before it happens then it is only a theoretical problem, not a premise.

[Amioran]

Grimwick wrote...
This is very relevant if it discredits your arguments. Debate is about the accreditation or discreditation of one's arguments. If you don't understand that then you will never be able to take part in one successfully.

It's not relevant because logic is not tied to agreeing to the point of view or the same logic, and neither it is tied to the execution of the same logic being right or wrong on one or multiple aspects.

For example you can not agree with edonism and the logic behind it, but it still has a valid logic. You can find some logic as that behind nihilism founded on morally debatable parameters, but it still has a valid logic.

So, you see, all your "evidence" you proposed there to discret the logic of the Catalyst is completely irrelevant to do so.

Debate is about accreditation or discretitation of the points tied to the argument at hand, not those that are completely irrelevant to the same.

Being logic a philosophical study it cannot encompass every aspect and every point of view, elsewhere you couldn't simply ever provide a valid reasoning on where to base an action (i.e. a logic). Point of views collides, as do the logics based on them; if you want to come with a solution to a problem you have to privilege a course of action in confront to another and in doing such you will collide to another point of view and another logic. This is inevitable.

What you say (in general) it has logic, but it has logic also what the SC does. If you do follow your logic your risk of not being able to overcome the problem, for example, while if you follow the logic of the SC you risk of acting on something that can never happen. So, where's the solution to this? There's none.

I never said everything needs to be pointed out directly in the narrative. Implications of such evidence are usually fine. But in this case, implied evidence is not enough proof of the validity of the SC's claim. Especially since all hypothetical proof that the SC might have would lead to self-contradictions or logical invalidations.

Again, it doesn't matter if you agree or not with the SC point of view, and neither it matters if the execution of the logic can be wrong in your opinion.

What it matters here is if there's a logic behind the solution adopted by the SC, and there is.

Grimwick wrote...
Again you are missing the point. Logic is either correct or incorrect, there is no middle ground and you can 'believe' in your logic all you like, but you are wrong or you are right.

For one that insist on telling me I miss the point I would at last expect him/her to know on what basis logic actually stand.

Grimwick wrote...
The SC may 'believe' in his logic but that doesn't mean that it is right. The logic he uses is in fact invalid and broken, which means overall - despite believing it from his point of view, and despite whatever logical steps he takes from his illogical premise  - his logic is wrong.

It is not about "believing". The logic behind the SC stands perfectly.

He has seen the possibility of synthetics whiping organics happens cycle after cylce and he has developed a solution to it. The solution is tied to the premise and point of view that if synthetics are allowed to evolve after a certain point the possibility of this happening is inevitable.

To overcome this he has developed the solution of whiping out those organics that can cause the possibility to arise.

All of this is perfectly logical. There's a problem and this is a solution. Agreeing with the same or not is irrelevant. There can be other solutions, naturally, and either better ones (morally or whatever) but their existence don't remove the logic behing the solution of the SC.

It doesn't exist a "supreme logic". There are always logics that collide one another, for example, because logics are usually tied also to point of views. These points of views don't invalidate the logic behind them.

Logic is the philosophical study of valid reasoning and as every philosophical study it is tied to point of views. Until there's a valid reasoning behind the study there's logic. It doesn't matter at all if you agree with the point of view or if another logic approach is preferred by you. For a reasoning to be logical you just need a valid motive behind the same, based on discernable and appurable parameters.

You can like more, for example, the logic behind Kant than the one behind Shopenahuer, but the fact that you can think Shopenahuer wrong on some of his assumption it doesn't invalidate the logic behind them.

Grimwick wrote...
Oh goodness... not this again? I'm going to leave your oversized ego out of it this time.

This thing is really funny.

It doesn't seem to me that *I* am the one that pretends to talk of a thing I don't know anything about and wanting to pass as an expert on the same, isn't it?

So, let me guess, I have an "oversized ego" just because I talk of a thing I know perfectly and I defend the same from a guy/girl that knows anything about the same and yet pretends to tell me I'm just sprouting nonsense about it, am I right?

Surely you have a strange vision of an "oversized ego".

Grimwick wrote...
Whether or not the themes are inconsistent or consistent with his solutions or his reasoning is completely irrelevant to the logic.

It is not, at all.

I begin to wonder if you either understand fully what are the parameters tied to a thing being logical or not.

You can read the definition of logic in a dictionary, maybe you will see that what I'm saying is perfectly right.

Grimwick wrote...
And I honestly don't care if there are any parrallels in the bible at all. Despite being a poor example of evidence of any theme, the bible has enough inconsistancies of it's own without bringing them into the argument.

Every philosophical study has inconsistencies and contradiction. Again, it matters little on its validity as a study.

As for not caring, this speaks volumes of you real attitude. You just want to be right and that's all. You dont' ponder either minimally about what the other says.

Grimwick wrote...
On a side note, simply because 2 books share a similar parallel that doesn't give credance to either of them having a specific theme - especially one as outlandish and abstract as Chaos vs Order.

It is not 2 books. There have been multiple books written on the theme, authors writing tractates on the same etc.

That the bible (and all occidental religions) are tied to the order vs. chaos theme is a well known philosophical fact, again written about by many philosophers of ancients and modern times.

Modifié par Amioran, 13 mai 2012 - 12:16 .

[daveyeisley]

Amio has confused the existence of a chain of logic with the presence of sound and correct logic.

The SC does have a chain of logic.

It's just invalid.

Modifié par daveyeisley, 13 mai 2012 - 12:50 .

[TheRealJayDee]

[quote]Amioran wrote...


[quote]Amioran wrote...

It is not about "believing". The logic behind the SC stands perfectly.

He has seen the possibility of synthetics whiping organics happens cycle after cylce and he has developed a solution to it. The solution is tied to the premise and point of view that if synthetics are allowed to evolve after a certain point the possibility of this happening is inevitable.

To overcome this he has developed the solution of whiping out those organics that can cause the possibility to arise.

All of this is perfectly logical. There's a problem and this is a solution. Agreeing with the same or not is irrelevant. There can be other solutions, naturally, and either better ones (morally or whatever) but their existence don't remove the logic behing the solution of the SC.[/quote]

Okay, all you're discussing here is that we should assume that the actions of a single-minded, misguided mass-murderer are perfectly logical from his own twisted point of view?

Yeah, that just might be true. Still doesn't change the fact that what we are shown in the games is nothing but proof for the Catalyst's atrocities, and not much evidence that backs his fears.

Modifié par TheRealJayDee, 13 mai 2012 - 02:34 .

[Sal86]

An aside: What does appurable mean please? The internet does not know.

[Grimwick]

[quote]Amioran wrote...

It's not relevant because logic is not tied to agreeing to the point of view or the same logic, and neither it is tied to the execution of the same logic being right or wrong on one or multiple aspects.

So, you see, all your "evidence" you proposed there to discret the logic of the Catalyst is completely irrelevant to do so.
[/quote]

If you'd care to scroll up you'd notice that what you said was a straw man. Therefore, by pointing out that this argument is a straw man I have removed it as a reasonable argument for your case. Therefore it is relevant. 
PS - I understand English isn't your first language but please make your arguments clearer, it is hard to argue against something I cannot understand.

[quote]
Again, it doesn't matter if you agree or not with the SC point of view, and neither it matters if the execution of the logic can be wrong in your opinion.

What it matters here is if there's a logic behind the solution adopted by the SC, and there is.[/quote]

You are right, it doesn't matter whether you agree with his opinion or not. Because his logic is WRONG. his opinion on the matter is completely useless if it isn't backed up by anything reasonable.

[quote]For one that insist on telling me I miss the point I would at last expect him/her to know on what basis logic actually stand.[/quote]
What.

[quote]
He has seen the possibility of synthetics whiping organics happens cycle after cylce and he has developed a solution to it. The solution is tied to the premise and point of view that if synthetics are allowed to evolve after a certain point the possibility of this happening is inevitable.

To overcome this he has developed the solution of whiping out those organics that can cause the possibility to arise.[/quote]
You are confusing, again, the ideas of "possibility" and "certainty". They are not equal and the treatment of them as equals is wrong.
A is sometimes equal to B. B is sometimes equal to C. Therefore C is always equal to A.

This is wrong and is very similar to a false dichotomy.

In the case of the SC he observes that A sometimes leads to B, that synthetics sometimes leads to war. But we also know that war doesn't always mean synthetics are involved.

But the SC also then says A sometimes leads to B, and B could potentially mean C, that synthetics leads to war and that war could potentially mean extermination of life. This is a fair enough deduction on it's own. the SC invalidates this, however by saying: Because A can lead to C, A=C.

This is completely wrong. 

[quote]It doesn't exist a "supreme logic". There are always logics that collide one another, for example, because logics are usually tied also to point of views. These points of views don't invalidate the logic behind them. [/quote]

Yes there does. Logic is universal. Please don't try and tell me that suddenly 1+1=3.

What logics contradict? Give me an example of such - one of the sides of argument will be wrong, or the inital premise will be ambiguous I promise you.

The logic itself will never contradict, only the conclusions being reached. Claiming that the logic contradicts is a poor understanding of what logic actually is.

[quote]Logic is the philosophical study of valid reasoning and as every philosophical study it is tied to point of views. Until there's a valid reasoning behind the study there's logic. It doesn't matter at all if you agree with the point of view or if another logic approach is preferred by you. For a reasoning to be logical you just need a valid motive behind the same, based on discernable parameters.[/quote]

You are confusing the philosophical side of logic with the formal side of deductive and inductive reasoning.
In this case, you can argue all you want about the philosophical premise of his solutions or his arguments - but from a pure inductive point of view he is wrong. And in this case, the SC is working from inductive reasoning.

An inductive argument is neither invalid, nor valid, but it never, ever, gives certainty to a conclusion. This means that any reasoning on the premise that the inductive argument is certain is wrong.

[quote][quote]Grimwick wrote...
Whether or not the themes are inconsistent or consistent with his solutions or his reasoning is completely irrelevant to the logic.[/quote]

It is not, at all. I begin to wonder if you either understand fully what are the parameters tied to a thing being logical or not.
You can read the definition of logic in a dictionary, maybe you will see that what I'm saying is perfectly right.[/quote]

The same can be said to you, but in this case only one of us is right...

[quote][quote]Grimwick wrote...
And I honestly don't care if there are any parrallels in the bible at all. Despite being a poor example of evidence of any theme, the bible has enough inconsistancies of it's own without bringing them into the argument.[/quote]

Every philosophical study has inconsistencies and contradiction. Again, it matters little on its validity as a study. [/quote] Contradiction invalidates a statement. Contradiction is the pure logical driving force of many proofs. 

[quote]As for not caring, this speaks volumes of you real attitude. You just want to be right and that's all. You dont' ponder either minimally about what the other says.[/quote]
No, it's because I honestly don't care what the bible has to say on any matter. It's nothing to do with whether I care about your argument.

[quote]That the bible (and all occidental religions) are tied to the order vs. chaos theme is a well known philosophical fact, again written about by many philosophers of ancients and modern times.[/quote]

I'll repeat myself again. it doesn't matter.

[iamthedave3]

Amioran wrote...

This thing is really funny.

It doesn't seem to me that *I* am the one that pretends to talk of a thing I don't know anything about and wanting to pass as an expert on the same, isn't it?

It doesn't seem that way to you, but you're not convincing anybody else.

Amioran wrote...
So, let me guess, I have an "oversized ego" just because I talk of a thing I know perfectly and I defend the same from a guy/girl that knows anything about the same and yet pretends to tell me I'm just sprouting nonsense about it, am I right?

You have an oversized ego because you assume you are the only person who knows what he's talking about and constantly talk down to anyone who disagrees with you, blithely ignoring the fact that more than half a dozen posters can see right through you.

You are not as smart as you think you are. You are not the only person on BSN with an education. You are not impressing anybody.

Grimwick wrote...

In the case of the SC he observes that A
sometimes leads to B, that synthetics sometimes leads to war. But we
also know that war doesn't always mean synthetics are involved.

But
the SC also then says A sometimes leads to B, and B could potentially
mean C, that synthetics leads to war and that war could potentially mean
extermination of life. This is a fair enough deduction on it's own. the
SC invalidates this, however by saying: Because A can lead to C, A=C.

This is completely wrong. 

Isn't the larger issue that we aren't given enough information to determine whether or not the Starchild's solution is even a logical approach to the problem?

The cycle as it exists is the reapers killing organics. The SC then adds to this a cycle of synthetics fighting organics, but he provides no evidence or proofs, and as many people have said, the actual games themselves contradict this. So we aren't provided with any of the evidence from which the SC - it can be assumed - drew its conclusions.

So with that on the table, how can we even say that the SC is acting logically? It may be able to speak in complete sentences, but that does not mean it is sane, reasonable, or even intelligent.

Modifié par iamthedave3, 13 mai 2012 - 01:12 .

[SalsaDMA]

Amioran wrote...

It doesn't seem to me that *I* am the one that pretends to talk of a thing I don't know
anything about and wanting to pass as an expert on the same, isn't it?

Full stop. That, right there, is your issue, and the reason you are unable to communicate at a relevant level in this (and previous) debate(s).

Look in a mirror mate, cause to the majoiry of us reading the threads you post in, it looks EXACTLY like it's you that pretends to talk of things you know nothing about whlie passing on as an expert.

Grimwick wrote...
And I honestly don't care if there are any parrallels in the bible at all. Despite being a poor example of evidence of any theme, the bible has enough inconsistancies of it's own without bringing them into the argument.

Every philosophical study has inconsistencies and contradiction. Again, it matters little on its validity as a study.

As for not caring, this speaks volumes of you real attitude. You just want to be right and that's all. You dont' ponder either minimally about what the other says.

Grimwick wrote...
On a side note, simply because 2 books share a similar parallel that doesn't give credance to either of them having a specific theme - especially one as outlandish and abstract as Chaos vs Order.

It is not 2 books. There have been multiple books written on the theme, authors writing tractates on the same etc.

That the bible (and all occidental religions) are tied to the order vs. chaos theme is a well known philosophical fact, again written about by many philosophers of ancients and modern times.

Amo, the mere notion that you are actively trying to use religion as a base to argue facts and logic from tells me you are on a tangent of perceptive reality that some of us aren't on. People are free to believe what they want, but when they start trying to use a belief as base for stating why something 'is' in an argument, it stops being 'people minding their own faith'.

Religious debates are frowned upon on these boards, and for good reason. Stop trying to drag religious dogmas into the debate as they do nothing but muddy the waters. Faith and logic are not the same thing, or even close to, so just stop trying to mingle them into the same debate. You either argue faith or logic, not both. And Faith debates are not welcomed in the forums.

If you feel you need to drag religious texts into a discussion about logic, you already lost the logic part of the debate.

[Andromidius]

Just had a stupid argument with someone over ME3 in a chatroom. Wasn't even a Mass Effect related thing. He said the same trite things (literally saying 'artistic vision' and 'setting a precident'!), and I said the same old refutations. Then he brings up having terminal cancer, and I'm so gobsmacked I get angry and tell him off.

Really, is arguing that ME3's ending is good so hard you have to resort to pity-farming and guilt-tripping? How very sad...

Also sucks that I keep hearing the same thing over and over again, no matter how many times its refuted.

[Grimwick]

iamthedave3 wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

In the case of the SC he observes that A sometimes leads to B, that synthetics sometimes leads to war. But we
also know that war doesn't always mean synthetics are involved.

But the SC also then says A sometimes leads to B, and B could potentially mean C, that synthetics leads to war and that war could potentially mean extermination of life. This is a fair enough deduction on it's own.
The SC invalidates this, however by saying: Because A can lead to C, A=C.

This is completely wrong. 

Isn't the larger issue that we aren't given enough information to determine whether or not the Starchild's solution is even a logical approach to the problem?

The cycle as it exists is the reapers killing organics. The SC then adds to this a cycle of synthetics fighting organics, but he provides no evidence or proofs, and as many people have said, the actual games themselves contradict this. So we aren't provided with any of the evidence from which the SC - it can be assumed - drew its conclusions.

So with that on the table, how can we even say that the SC is acting logically? It may be able to speak in complete sentences, but that does not mean it is sane, reasonable, or even intelligent.

You are right, this is a very big issue. What I was trying to point out was that if the original premise was incorrect or illogical, then any action he makes on that premise is illogical. This would make his 'solutions' invalid as a solution. He bases his logic from 'evidence' that he claims he has, yet this evidence must have been extrapolated to the extremes in order for him to come to these conclusions.

The SC, as you say, simply adds to the killing by killing organics. The terrible irony is that he kills organics with synthetics. Whether or not this is an actual solution to the problem is a very good question, I thought that the whole point was to preserve organic life just generally - there's no point in trying to conserve it in any form by killing it.

[Amioran]

daveyeisley wrote...
It's just invalid.

It's not invalid at all. It has parameters not taken in consideration, but the same happens with every other logic.

You cannot provide a logic that include ALL parameters, you can only decide to give precedence to some over others.
The SC logic has naturally drawbacks, as for example the probablity of commiting an action that's not necessary, but so does the logic you put forth, that has the drawback, for example, of not resolving the problem altogheter.

It is just a matter of point of views. The SC doesn't like to gamble, and he resolves the problem at the root, without caring too much for what it can or cannot be.

[Amioran]

SalsaDMA wrote...
Look in a mirror mate, cause to the majoiry of us reading the threads you post in, it looks EXACTLY like it's you that pretends to talk of things you know nothing about whlie passing on as an expert.

Excuse me, pal, but until you don't provide some proofs of the same (as I always do) you cannot pretend to have me take you seriously.

All I said it is perfectly right and it is what logic is all about. Again, you would want to read a dictionary sometimes to see if what you are supposedly talking about it's really such.

I didn't see any of your "friends" nor you having something to say directly to what I write. All you do is twisting and disregarding concepts you don't like just to try to be right no matter what.

Religious debates are frowned upon on these boards, and for good reason. Stop trying to drag religious dogmas into the debate as they do nothing but muddy the waters.

Another example of twisting completely what I say just to try to have a point. Would you please stop doing that?

I just provided an example of another narrative sharing the same background as an example of the same and the comparisions you can make between the two. This has nothing to do with "religious dogma".

Faith and logic are not the same thing, or even close to, so just stop trying to mingle them into the same debate. You either argue faith or logic, not both. And Faith debates are not welcomed in the forums.

Yet another twisting, hopla!

Faith has nothing to do with this. The story of Jehovah shares the same root, order vs. chaos. That's all. Faith it has nothing to do with this.

If you feel you need to drag religious texts into a discussion about logic, you already lost the logic part of the debate.

Apart that the example of Jehovah was referred to another thing (yet another twisting, good job, good job) every religious text has a philosophical ground, and logic is based on the same.

So, you said to me before that I am the one that don't know of what he is talking about and yet you here completely contradict the meaning of the word itself. Good job, good job.

I still wonder why I insist replying seriously to someone of you.

[Amioran]

iamthedave3 wrote...
You have an oversized ego because you assume you are the only person who knows what he's talking about and constantly talk down to anyone who disagrees with you, blithely ignoring the fact that more than half a dozen posters can see right through you.

Until I find someone here that knows a little about the order vs. chaos theme, then yes, I am the only one, don't you think?

Tell me, sincerely, do you know something about it?

If the reply is not (as I'm sure it is) then why pretending that I have an oversized ego just because of this?

iamthedave3 wrote...
You are not as smart as you think you are. You are not the only person on BSN with an education. You are not impressing anybody.

Again; I have yet to find either one of you here knowing about the theme I'm talking about.

I'm sorry for you, but you cannot insist that I'm not the only one knowing it when there's nobody else here that does. It is a little of a contradiction, don't you think?

iamthedave3 wrote...
Isn't the larger issue that we aren't given enough information to determine whether or not the Starchild's solution is even a logical approach to the problem?

I already provided proof before that we have it.

All the evidence you need is implied in the narrative. You have a first hand approach with the problem and you know it has happened the same in the previous cycle (and only the Reapers stopped it). You then also know what the Catalyst tells you and there's no motive at all to doubt his words given the context.

iamthedave3 wrote...
The cycle as it exists is the reapers killing organics. The SC then adds to this a cycle of synthetics fighting organics, but he provides no evidence or proofs, and as many people have said, the actual games themselves contradict this. So we aren't provided with any of the evidence from which the SC - it can be assumed - drew its conclusions.

Before we knew the full picture we assumed that is was just a matter of Reapers vs. organics. When the picture is complete the matter at hand shift.

As for the synthetic vs. organics matter being the primary aspect after a while, again, it is implied in the narrative at a certain point. Refer to what I said above.

iamthedave3 wrote...
So with that on the table, how can we even say that the SC is acting logically? It may be able to speak in complete sentences, but that does not mean it is sane, reasonable, or even intelligent.

He is acting perfectly logically given the problem. Also if we didn't know for sure that what the SC tells is true (a thing we know, given the context) its logic still stands. Either if what he says is only his assumption (and it never happened), there's still a sound logic behind the way to resolve the problem based on that assumption.

[TheRealJayDee]

Amioran wrote...

You have a first hand approach with the problem and you know it has happened the same in the previous cycle (and only the Reapers stopped it). You then also know what the Catalyst tells you and there's no motive at all to doubt his words given the context.

What exactly are you referring to here? What solid proof do we have of synthetics coming close to eradicating all organic life?

Actually, never mind. I guess there really is no point discussing this with you...

[crazyrabbits]

After reading this topic, I am reminded of a famous incident involving Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau back in the 70's. A reporter from a major news network confronted Trudeau on the steps of Parliament Hill as he was walking in for Question Period, and got into a debate with him over a situation involving the merits of police privileges. At the end of that conversation (which went on for 10 minutes), Trudeau said, "You're playing Devil's Advocate...that's a hell of a role to take."

It reminds me of the scant few people who continue to defend the ending (Razman, Amioran, MintyCool) with a variety of nonsensical and illogical arguments that appear to be nothing more than flamebait. "You just didn't get it", "Bad writing is not bad writing if it's explained in the future", "You can't have a happy ending", "There is no such thing as objectively bad writing", "The Starchild made perfect sense", "There's plenty of artistic integrity", etc, etc. The same points, repeated ad nauseum.

It seems they're just arguing a contrarian POV for the sake of it, and are only doing so because they want to play Devil's Advocate and argue. All of their points are often drowned out in the myriad number of people who refute, dismiss and otherwise shutdown their nonsensical and flamebait arguments.

These topics do nothing more than prove the point that the ending was a rushjob that collapsed under the weight of its own narrative by introducing so many illogical questions/elements.

Modifié par crazyrabbits, 13 mai 2012 - 02:42 .

[iamthedave3]

Amioran wrote...

Until I find someone here that knows a little about the order vs. chaos theme, then yes, I am the only one, don't you think?

Everyone knows about it. The difference is that you have arbitrarily declared that 'order vs chaos' is the theme of the entire Mass Effect storyline despite evidence of multiple other themes which run through the work. It is not about order vs chaos anymore than it is about self-determination.

They're multiple themes in a large work.

Amioran wrote...Tell me, sincerely, do you know something about it?

Yes.

Amioran wrote...If the reply is not (as I'm sure it is) then why pretending that I have an oversized ego just because of this?

Well, the reply is that I do. The fact you included the 'as I'm sure it is' is the part where you again demonstrate your oversized ego.

You think you're incredibly clever, insightful and intelligent, and that nobody but you knows what he's talking about. And that's what makes it a statement of ego. You're certainly insightful, but your insights are not of a quality superior to that of, say, Grimwick who has politely dealt with your constant condescension and argued with you respectfully despite your absolute lack of respect towards Grim.

Amioran wrote...Again; I have yet to find either one of you here knowing about the theme I'm talking about.

We aren't talking about that theme anyway, so what difference does it make? This isn't 'the order vs chaos' thread, is it?

Amioran wrote...I'm sorry for you, but you cannot insist that I'm not the only one knowing it when there's nobody else here that does. It is a little of a contradiction, don't you think?

Declaring the sky is purple does not make it so.

Has it never occurred to you that people are more than aware of that theme and just don't think it's that interesting?

I hate to break it to you, but this is not a work of great philosophy or literature. It's a action space opera with high production values and great voice acting. Part of the ending's abysmal failure lies in the writers forgetting that they were - in fact - writing an action space opera and trying to be profound in the most forced way imaginable.

Amioran wrote...I already provided proof before that we have it.

All the evidence you need is implied in the narrative.

Implications are not proof. At all. In fact the entire problem with implications is that different people will draw different implications unless they are handled very carefully, hence the amount of 'plenty of speculation for everyone' that has gone on in the past couple of months.

Amioran wrote...You have a first hand approach with the problem and you know it has happened the same in the previous cycle (and only the Reapers stopped it). You then also know what the Catalyst tells you and there's no motive at all to doubt his words given the context.

The catalyst tells you essentially nothing.

Why don't you actually start quoting the game instead of talking in generalities, since you claim the implications are so clear? Show us this evidence instead of just claiming it exists.

You constantly do this. You say something, declare yourself correct, and then jump up on your high horse, stick your fingers in your ears and go 'lalalalalalala' when people point out that you're aren't right just because you say so.

Your latest spate of 'look up the definition in the dictionary' has been hilarious because you've been wrong several times in a row.

Modifié par iamthedave3, 13 mai 2012 - 03:08 .

[Amioran]

Grimwick wrote...
If you'd care to scroll up you'd notice that what you said was a straw man. Therefore, by pointing out that this argument is a straw man I have removed it as a reasonable argument for your case. Therefore it is relevant. 

I've seen that as always you completely disregarded all the points that proved wrong all you said.

Listen, if you continue with this tactic I'm done with you, seriously.

You are right, it doesn't matter whether you agree with his opinion or not. Because his logic is WRONG. his opinion on the matter is completely useless if it isn't backed up by anything reasonable.

It is not wrong, damn. I already evidenced why it isn't.

I will try one last time with an example. If you discard the thing as you always do I'm done, sorry.

You are confusing, again, the ideas of "possibility" and "certainty". They are not equal and the treatment of them as equals is wrong.
A is sometimes equal to B. B is sometimes equal to C. Therefore C is always equal to A.

You cannot have certainity in anything. Logic is not based on full certainity, at all. There's no thing as "foolproof logic", it doesn't exist a thing as that.

The most you can do is to base a logic on parameters you can control and those parameters are selected depending on your point of view.

Again, I will make two examples about this in a moment.

This is wrong and is very similar to a false dichotomy.

The only thing wrong is the fact that you really believe that logic is to be based on foolproofs parameters. It's not, at all. It is impossible to have a thing as that because for every philosophical study the parameters are too ample and if you consider all of them, also those that are against your control, you just stand by never making a decision, simply because there exists a contradicton to every statement, every one (this is a basilar philosophical concept, btw).

In the case of the SC he observes that A sometimes leads to B, that synthetics sometimes leads to war. But we also know that war doesn't always mean synthetics are involved.

It doesn't change the possibility of this happening. This is all that matters for the logic to stand.

You will see what I mean in a moment.

What logics contradict? Give me an example of such - one of the sides of argument will be wrong, or the inital premise will be ambiguous I promise you.

Ok, since elsewhere we will go round and round in circles, I will let you see what I mean with two full examples, with two different logical approaches to the matter. You will see that none is better than the other, simply because both are based on different point of views. Both will still be perfectly logical, however, and the outcome or the other contrasting logic will not change this.

Problem:
"It has been seen that advanced organics have the possibility of whiping out organics If no solution is provided since their point of view are so different in many aspects and inconciliable in many of them" (and add to this whatever you want, it is just an example, very basilar).

Point of view A:

Logic: "The solution to this is overcoming the possibility altogheter, by killing those organics that can create the possibility to happen".

Point of view B:
 
Logic: "There's always a way to make two point of views compatible. It is futile to bandage the head before it hurts, so the best solution is to try to have synthetics and organics to cooperate so that the possibility of a thing as that happening it doesn't either presents itself."

Use of Logic A:

Here's there only one scenario, incertainity of what it would have happened otherwise. "We know we resolved the problem at the root. We lost millions of people but at last we know we saved many more. We don't know what will have happened otherwise, but we don't either want to know. Salvation is not to be tied to a gamble".

Use of Logic B:

Positive scenario: "By a good effort peace between organics and synthetics is achieved. There will be always incompatibilities but we hope to resolve them as they come out. We have spared millions of life with this approach and luckily we went with it"

Negative scenario: "We couldn't avoid war, no matter how much we tried. At first we thought it was possible, but then some inprevedible parameter destroyed all the efforts we did till that point. Now we organics are almost whiped out. It is too late to do anything else. Using this approach has given us no possibility to operate otherwise now and we cannot turn back. Still I don't condem my logic, it has been a good tentative after all, and if it succeded it would have spared millions of lifes. It is true that now the lives lost are much more and we are completely annhiliated, but at last we hoped for something better; still I wonder if what I did was wrong, after all. I decided to gamble with salvation, and also if I know that the cause was just, we lost everything for it".


Summary:
So, you see, what's better of the two? Both have parameters you CANNOT control. You cannot know the outcome of a thing before it happens, there are too many variables involved. All you can do is decide on a logical approach and follow the same. There will always be a different logic against what you decide to do, there will always be drawbacks and positives, but there's no way out of this. Being a logic based on philosophical studies, there will always be contradictions to be found, always.

Both solutions were perfect logical for what they assumed to do. The fact that in the logic B the negative scenario completely whiped out organics didn't invalidate the logic behind the decision. It is only that you CANNOT include every paramater in a logic and you cannot because there are always parameters behind your control and your knowledge. It is like in a strategy game. If you consider too many things you never act and it is either worse, and anyway you cannot consider things you cannot know in anticipation. Logic B preferred to see the development of the thing and either hope to overcome the incompatibilities. Still, since the thing is tied to many parameters you cannot control it is much more of a gamble than the other logic. It is either less foolproof than the other is.

For logic A is the same thing. It is true that you acted prematurely, without knowing either if what you did was necessary at all, but in this way you didn't have the drawback of not knowing what it will happen, so risking of losing everything. You decided to include in the logic only those parameters you could fully control and nothing else, but doing such removed completely the possibility of things changing. The fact that the positive outcome of logic B actually proved you wrong, it didn't invalidate your logic, simply because it was a parameter you couldn't know the outcome in anticipation, so you couldn't include the outcome to draw your logic upon it. You naturally could consider the probablity of this happening, but since it is not a fact, it is tied, again, to a matter of point of views (in the case of A that it is just utopia an outcome as this happening).

So you see, one solution was as logic as the other. The only thing different was the point of view in them. Neither of the two was "foolproof" or based on a "better" logic. They were just based on two different approaches (as it always happens for what it concerns philosophical matters) to the solution of the problem at hand. Both had to do with parameters out of your control and decided how to deal with them in different ways, as it always happen.

The difference between the two logics, then, were only the two different point of views. One preferred to approach things as they did came, hoping to turn things in favor, it is the point of view of always having another possibility, that nothing is inevitable (and either more, but since you consider "order vs. chaos" bulls*it I will leave it out of the equation). The other logic, instead, had the exactly opposite point of view, the inevitability of some things happening, and with this point of view in mind there's no motive to see how the thing develops, it is just utopia.

Hilarious conclusion:

So, in the end, you see, for what it concerns the parameters that you brought forth, those of having a "foolproof logic" actually the logic of the SC is more conform to it, hilarously enough. With that logic you have not the possibility of organics beind whiped out entirely if something goes bad, differently from the other.

Isn't this funny?

Modifié par Amioran, 13 mai 2012 - 03:24 .

[SalsaDMA]

Amioran wrote...

Isn't this funny?

Only thing funny is your ability to enter self denial.

[Il Divo]

Amioran wrote...

I didn't "buy" anything. I just understand their point of view. I don't agree with it myself, but I understand it. A thing you obviously cannot since you don't include the full picture but only what you like to consider.

Really? Because typically in order to understand someone's point of view, you have to be given some amount of insight into why they think x. I don't claim to understand the Catalyst's point of view any more than I would claim to understand the point of view of someone who believed in God, unless I was given some background on their belief. There's a million ways someone might come to believe in God the same way there's a million ways someone might come to believe in a synthetic-organic conflict.

You try to tie logic behaviour with a thing being right or wrong, as in "it cannot be logical if it's not right", but this is not the way logic works. You can have a logic behind a thing that's wrong in one or multiple aspects, as the moral one for example. Serial killers, for example, many times act with perfect logic also if morally they are almost always wrong.

I claimed that we needed some insight into how he came into his POV, as you put it. As it stands, we have no idea what caused the Catalyst to think this solution was necessary. Was it one really bad cycle where organics were almost wiped out? Was it an actual pattern where synthetics (as a collective group) declared war against organics? Did he mathematically derive it in his head? Or as I said before, did he just really love the Terminator series? All are equally plausible in the context of the Mass Effect universe, because the writers decided to condense the Reapers' grand motivation to a sentence.

 
So, either he himself admit that it is just a point of view, and that the thing CAN change depending on the situation.

Actually, he never maintains that his POV can change, only that his solution won't work anymore, for some bizarre reason.

This is all totally irrelevant, do you understand this?

The fact that the Catalyst can be proven wrong it doesn't contradicts his logic at all. He just has a point of view in the matter and he behaves accordingly to it. Certainly he can be proven wrong, as every point of view can, in part or in full, but this doesn't change that he has a logic behind and he developed a solution based on that logic that's perfectly fine.

The Catalyst can't be proven anything. An inevitability claim, in isolation, cannot be proven wrong. We need an argument, which is something we don't have (as I said, the Catalyst doesn't give us a premise). Which demonstrates the mediocrity of the ending in that Shepard/the Player don't get to point out how bizarre his conclusion is.

And actually, the fact that you have to struggle all the time to recover problems with synthetics vs. organics proves that what the Catalyst says, empirically it is perfectly plausible, i.e. it can and it WILL happen if something is not done about it. The way you approach the problem variates depending on the point of view.

No, it's actually stupidity of the highest order. It would be like me claiming that conflict between men and women is inevitable, then to use a conflict which a man and a woman have to justify it, despite the fact that two men can have the exact same argument.

The only experiences which justify the Catalyst's claims are those based around attributes inherent to synthetics and attributes inherent to organics, otherwise, we get the geth rebellion. The fact that they were machines wasn't important; that they were being attacked by their creators was, something any organic could sympathize with. The Catalyst's claim as it stands makes an arbitary distinction between synthetics and organics while being completely unable to point out any difference between the two.

If your point of view is more "maybe it can be overcome" then you try to act conformly. The point of view of the Catalyst is, instead, "there's nothing to be done about it", and in the same way he acts accordingly. There's nothing ILLOGICAL about this, and this thread is NOT about if the Catalyst is right or wrong, but if he acts logically, a thing he does.

As before, no. If the basis for the Catalyst's reasoning is that he watched Terminator, then his logic dies with him there. Empirical experience and rational argumentation would be the only things on which this could be argued, but again he doesn't give us either. If the Catalyst doesn't have empirical experience which indicate that synthetics will always attack organics, then he's just wasting time; there's a million inevitabilities which we can fight to prevent, so singling out the synthetic organic conflict is pointless.

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 mai 2012 - 04:30 .