365 réponses à ce sujet

[Grimwick]

[quote]Amioran wrote...
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.
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.[/quote]

I have, from the very beginning, simply been debating your ideas. All I am doing is showing, logically or otherwise, that your arguments can be discredited. I am not ignoring anything you say, quite the contrary, I am reading what you write very carefully.
If you want to continue to debate this, then counter my arguments or offer new ones - you cannot defend criticism by saying you have already given evidence.

[quoteYou 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.[/quote]

No, that is incorrect. Logic is certainly certain (pun intended) and certainty is possible in life.
For example, I am certain that 3x2=6 and that nothing will ever change that. 

Of course, using examples of things which aren't as abstract as mathematics is a lot harder but we are still left with some. I am pretty certain that I exist, for as Descartes said: I am able to doubt my own existance. Logic can exist as a foolproof concept. If A=B and B=C then A=C. A will always be equal to C - that is foolproof logic right there.

But I digress, whether or not the SC's logic is fallable due to this 'uncertainty' however, I will describe later.

[quote]
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. [/quote]

I never said that, and if i did then I apologise for my mistake. I simply meant that the foundations of his logic are not foolproof. The real problem is that the foundations of his logic are in fact incredibly shaky.

The SC observes an event in which synthetics killed organics (though we don't actually know if he does, let's take this for granted). The SC then creates a parameter, that created synthetics are able to kill organics. This is a pretty fair parameter to make based on his observed evidence. But the next step is his induction, and where the logic falls down.

He induces another parameter -  that from the observation made, created synthetics will ALWAYS kill and exterminate all organic life. This is flawed example of inductive reasoning, he has seen a specific example and has generilised to the point of insensibility. Science works on the basis of observation -> repeated observation -> induction -> explanation -> proof/counter-evidence and discredititation. 

The logic of the reasoning and explanation is independent of the logic of the induction; the logic of the entire theory is only as strong as the weakest part, which in this case is the induction.

The SC makes the classic mistake of inducing a parameter from insufficient evidence and the overall strength of the argument is destroyed - it is illogical to make solutions on a premise which hasn't been proven to be true just as is is illogical to make solutions on a false premise which is known to be false 

An example: Say you wanted to model the motion of a parachutist through mathematical means. You create a parameter however that for the first half of the flight there is no air resistance acting on the parachutist. he creates a subsequent equation for the motion and deduces that the parachutist will take X amount ot time in order to hit the ground. this is a false conclusion. It may be 100% accurate in his given equation and model, but it is a flawed model and the result is therefore incorrect.
If he were to suggest changes made to the parachute from this model, he is being illogical - he is not using direct evidence as a cause for change, he is knowingly using an incorrect concept.

Indulge me by allowing me to counter your example in a separate post, I fear it would be too long otherwise.

[Grimwick]

Amioran wrote...

Grimwick wrote...
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.

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).

Ok, I will try to argue against this as best I can - the problem being that I cannot understand you very well. Perhaps if you were to retype it in more fluent english? I fear you have accidentally used the wrong words here.

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."

This appears to be an example of two separate solutions rather than two logics. Both are trying to prevent the problem, that synthetic life will kill organic life, but B is adding a premise of their own.

B suggests a new parameter that synthetic and organic life can coexist. This means that overall the foundation of the logic in both arguments is in fact different, leading to different solutions to the same problem.
A does not have this parameter, instead basing it's ideas on one pure example, and therefore concludes that the solution is different to that of B. Whenever you try to create a variety of different solutions to a problem, you have to take into account a variety of factors and therefore a variety of parameters to take into account.

You can't then compare them as having different logical conclusions from the same data because they actually have different logical conclusions from different data.  This is a problem you will always make in this type of comparison.

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".

This invalidates itself as a reason due to the nature of it's solution. If their justification is 'we lost many people, let's not take a risk and let it happen again' and the solution is 'kill all organics to prevent them making synthetics' then it is simply the wrong solution.

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"

This is not necessarily a solution to the original problem per se, it is a result of choosing to make peace. The logical justifications of an argument or solution are independent of how the results turn out, it is only dependent on projected results. 

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".

As I said above, the logical justification is independent of the observed outcome and it is only dependent on the expected outcome.

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.

No, it doesn't. but using a parameter you cannot control in an absolute decision is stupid - you are doomed to failure. This is what the SC does, creates a parameter out of nowhere for a problem -a parameter he cannot control - and then he decides to act on it.

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.

No, the analogy is an unfair comparison. These are decisions based on different parameters and therefore no logical argument can be said to be better - because of that. One is not equal to the other because the logic is equal but only because the comparison is unequal.

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?

No, what we have seen is that different conclusions are reached when we have different information. This only shows that the SC was incorrect to act on insufficient evidence.

[Windninja47]

Or the reapers could, I dunno, tell people to stop making sentient machines?

Besides, an ending that needs this much explanatian can't be a very good one now can it?

Modifié par Windninja47, 13 mai 2012 - 05:11 .

[iamthedave3]

Windninja47 wrote...

Or the reapers could, I dunno, tell people to stop making sentient machines?

Besides, an ending that needs this much explanatian can't be a very good one now can it?

The problem is it's not even explanation. It's various people coming up with their own takes on scant information to try and cobble together something which makes sense in their own head.

Different takes make different amounts of sense, but they all suffer the same problem in the end and - so far at least - every single explanation on both sides of the divide has pokable holes in it. Usually big ones.

Modifié par iamthedave3, 13 mai 2012 - 05:24 .

[Kalas82]

The Razman wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

All of that is soundproof.

No it's not. It really isn't.

Obvious troll is obvious.

are you talking bout yourself? If not, you`re tryin to tell us that this whole James-Bond-Villian-scheme Space-God created did make sense to you. If that`s the case..well there`s just no point in an argument cause that`s plain hillarious.
You see even if you shut down all brain-functions and accept this immensy stupid cycle-logic, this crazy-ass reaction Space-God and his reaper-buddys had to a scenario which never happen and thus they cannot know if it will ever happen (the scenario beeing -> synthetics kill organics)...... you`re still awere how stupid and mindnumbing unpractical their whole setup-to-save-organic-life is..i hope you are...cause that`s just so dumb that even bad fan-fiction could`t come up with that.

Funny how there are still people trying to convince the world that the whole ME3-story made 1 piece of sense.
The main plot is strange, the ending and conclousion is just broken...your liking it ? fine, but there are people out there who don`t want Bioware to become some Uwe Boll, Roland E. like gaming developer and sure as hell ...the ships taking that course.

[Zolt51]

Le Internet troll:

- Post a thread saying "let's not talk about xxxxx"
- watch as everyone talks about xxxxx
- ????
- Profit!

Hurr hurr hurrr.

[BrysonC]

Okay, but...none of that explains why the Reapers harvest organic life and turn them into more Reapers.

[Tallin Harperson]

Windninja47 wrote...

Or the reapers could, I dunno, tell people to stop making sentient machines?

Besides, an ending that needs this much explanatian can't be a very good one now can it?

Considering when the Quarians created the Geth the Citadel Council had already banned the creation of AI, the effectiveness of such a pronouncement seems small...

I'm gonna post a bit, and clarify if necessary:

I make no argument that the Catalyst made a logical argument, but not making a logical argument and his statement being illogical are not the same thing. The possibility of genocide by synthetic life is something the series dealt with extensively. It doesn't take much to extrapolate that to all organic life when you factor in that synthetic life has no dependence on organic life. Add to that that the Catalyst more than likely was programmed to think of himself as immortal, and thus factored everything into infinity, making any possibility a statistical certainty if it is not in some way hampered. The solution was the Reapers. Even the Catalyst admits that it was not a solution that would always work, which is why the solution includes a failsafe: when the Reapers are no longer able to fulfill their purpose, then an alternate solution must be found (incidently, why the Catalyst did not help the Reapers in ME1: they have to fulfill their purpose on their own).

By letting Shepard make the choice, he acknowledges that his original solution is in some way flawed. Would I like to see the Catalyst explain his reasoning? Sure. But I don't believe it is entirely necessary to supply reasoning for a solution that is acknowledged as no longer viable. I actually just assumed all this was true from what the Catalyst does say (which to me, actually, most of the exposition in ME games, strangely enough, seems only to be saying things that are implied by what a character says in their main responses anyway... though I still do go through all available dialogue... part of my completionist outlook). Okay, so we don't agree with the Catalyst. Understood. Unfortunately, there are only three options provided. Now, assuming that none of them require the destruction of the galaxy (an implication the BioWare writers admit they did not intend or foresee, though I do understand why some would come to that conclusion), there are three options, all of which involve some sort of sacrifice, and only in one of which Shepard can survive. They are all somewhat morally grey, but it really does come down to what BioWare has always had, three options based on the different philosophies: save as many as possible no matter the personal cost, finish the mission and **** casualties, or try to find the best of both worlds.

You can't know what the consequences are of each action, just as sometimes the Paragon option is actually worse in the long run, you can only make that choice.

Now, let me sum up what I am arguing and what I'm not.

I am arguing that:
- the ending can be logically explained
- the options given fit with the ME design, even if they aren't the options we all might like (but this has always been the case in the game: I would have liked to have the option to keep the Rachni queen in captivity for a time, not just kill or set free)

I am not arguing:
- that this is clearly set out in the dialogue
- that there should or couldn't have been a more fleshed out conclusion, and that I don't want more explanation
- that the endings as they stand offer a unique conclusion without conjecture by the player

I'm trying to say it's not an "us vs. them" thing which seems to be polarizing the forums, but that there are other ways to look at things. I will state that I have no animosity toward anyone here, and though I suppose I might come off as beligerent, that is not my intention. Take from that what you will. :-)

Modifié par Tallin Harperson, 13 mai 2012 - 07:33 .

[Tallin Harperson]

Here something I hope some might find interesting, but I'm not calling this anymore than pure conjecture:

What if all organic life in the Milky Way had been wiped out by synthetics at some point?

It's not actually impossible as it seems, even without life evolving again from amino acids. If the Catalyst was a last ditch effort by an organic race to make sure some form of organic life survived, then the Reapers could have originally been the solution to that. Think of it this way: synthetics have been created which are on the verge of wiping out all organic life. Unable to find any hope of fighting back, they instead create a VI whose sole purpose is to preserve organic life. To do this, the VI creates the Reapers, who harvest what organic life they can and then flee into Dark Space without these synthetics being aware. At some point the Reapers are able to return and purge the galaxy of this synthetic life and using the DNA stored in their own forms, reseed the galaxy with life. It doesn't stop there, though, because this could happen again, so every fifty thousand years they go in, reap the most advanced life, and then retreat in to dark space, and come back to reap again... or sow, if that has become necessary because life has become extinct. In that way, the cycles may have been something that was never even intended by the creators of the Catalyst, just an extrapolation of its original programming.

So yeah, nothing to really support this, since it is pure conjecture. But then, nothing to discount it as far as I can see... let me know if I'm wrong on that, though...

[Veneke]

I'm afraid that I'm going to break your nice paragraphs up so that my replies more clearly follow what you're saying.

Tallin Harperson wrote...

Considering when the Quarians created the Geth the Citadel Council had already banned the creation of AI, the effectiveness of such a pronouncement seems small...

I'm gonna post a bit, and clarify if necessary:

I make no argument that the Catalyst made a logical argument, but not making a logical argument and his statement being illogical are not the same thing. The possibility of genocide by synthetic life is something the series dealt with extensively. It doesn't take much to extrapolate that to all organic life when you factor in that synthetic life has no dependence on organic life.

Firstly, the possibility of the destruction of all organic life by synthetic life wasn't covered in the series in a manner that would fit that argument. The Reapers don't want to kill all of us, so they're not covering it and the Geth (after ME 1) don't suggest anything of the sort. Fair enough it doesn't take much to extrapolate that it's possible, but it's not based on anything in the ME series.

Add to that that the Catalyst more than likely was programmed to think of himself as immortal, and thus factored everything into infinity, making any possibility a statistical certainty if it is not in some way hampered. The solution was the Reapers. Even the Catalyst admits that it was not a solution that would always work, which is why the solution includes a failsafe: when the Reapers are no longer able to fulfill their purpose, then an alternate solution must be found (incidently, why the Catalyst did not help the Reapers in ME1: they have to fulfill their purpose on their own).

The only way this becomes relevant is if this was what was intended, in which case it should have been in the game. There's no way of knowing who or what the Catalyst is, let alone who he was designed by or his programming parameters. It's a good guess, but it doesn't mean anything. In fact it raises more questions about the nature of the Catalyst - all of which are left unanswered. This is, I think, the biggest problem in attemting to understand the Catalyst. Nobody knows for certain and all guesswork simply adds to the questions. No matter what way you cut it, understanding the ending all comes down to 'sure, whatever you're having yourself.'

By letting Shepard make the choice, he acknowledges that his original solution is in some way flawed. Would I like to see the Catalyst explain his reasoning? Sure. But I don't believe it is entirely necessary to supply reasoning for a solution that is acknowledged as no longer viable. I actually just assumed all this was true from what the Catalyst does say (which to me, actually, most of the exposition in ME games, strangely enough, seems only to be saying things that are implied by what a character says in their main responses anyway... though I still do go through all available dialogue... part of my completionist outlook). Okay, so we don't agree with the Catalyst. Understood. Unfortunately, there are only three options provided. Now, assuming that none of them require the destruction of the galaxy (an implication the BioWare writers admit they did not intend or foresee, though I do understand why some would come to that conclusion), there are three options, all of which involve some sort of sacrifice, and only in one of which Shepard can survive. They are all somewhat morally grey, but it really does come down to what BioWare has always had, three options based on the different philosophies: save as many as possible no matter the personal cost, finish the mission and **** casualties, or try to find the best of both worlds.

Fair points towards the end but I question the relevance of this to the Catalysts logic. The only thing I see here that's relevant is you essentially dismissing it (the Catalysts logic) as irrelevant to the ending. Which, er... well. The Catalyst's logic is the point of this thread. So, yeah.

Even ignoring the relevance to the thread, however, it still boils down to the 'whatever you're having yourself' mentioned above.

You can't know what the consequences are of each action, just as sometimes the Paragon option is actually worse in the long run, you can only make that choice.

Now, let me sum up what I am arguing and what I'm not.

I am arguing that:
- the ending can be logically explained
- the options given fit with the ME design, even if they aren't the options we all might like (but this has always been the case in the game: I would have liked to have the option to keep the Rachni queen in captivity for a time, not just kill or set free)

I am not arguing:
- that this is clearly set out in the dialogue
- that there should or couldn't have been a more fleshed out conclusion, and that I don't want more explanation
- that the endings as they stand offer a unique conclusion without conjecture by the player

I'm trying to say it's not an "us vs. them" thing which seems to be polarizing the forums, but that there are other ways to look at things. I will state that I have no animosity toward anyone here, and though I suppose I might come off as beligerent, that is not my intention. Take from that what you will. :-)

The argument that you shouldn't know the consequences of the endings is something I toyed with, and ultimately dismissed because if that was the case then the endings failed to accomplish their purpose: entertainment and closure. It would be reasonable to leave the long-term conclusions out of the ending (which incidently would allow for a ME 4 carrying on from ME 3) but the short-term ones should be visible. This isn't even my argument, the immediate short-term consequences are already ingame though they're very short (and frustratingly incomplete) glimpses of what happens. These need to be expanded and I'm pretty sure that these are what the EC will build upon.

Your other post outlining the possibilities of the Catalyst's origins is intriguing, but as you say it's conjecture. Well-thought-out conjecture, definitely, but guesswork nonetheless.

[Amioran]

Grimwick wrote...
No, that is incorrect. Logic is certainly certain (pun intended) and certainty is possible in life.
For example, I am certain that 3x2=6 and that nothing will ever change that.

That's not logic, that's a mathematical equation, two different things.

Grimwick wrote...
Of course, using examples of things which aren't as abstract as mathematics is a lot harder but we are still left with some. I am pretty certain that I exist, for as Descartes said: I am able to doubt my own existance. Logic can exist as a foolproof concept. If A=B and B=C then A=C. A will always be equal to C - that is foolproof logic right there.

Again, that's not logic, that's a mathematical equation.

Grimwick wrote...
I never said that, and if i did then I apologise for my mistake. I simply meant that the foundations of his logic are not foolproof. The real problem is that the foundations of his logic are in fact incredibly shaky.

Because there are parameters that are out of your control in the problem, parameters you don't know the outcome of, so they are not facts but hypothesis.

Try to provide a logic solution to that problem without including your point of view in the matter (that it happens when you have parameters out of your control and hypothesis) and without basing your logic on assumptions of "what it could be if...".

If you can do it then I will gladly admit I am wrong.

Grimwick wrote...
He induces another parameter - that from the observation made, created synthetics will ALWAYS kill and exterminate all organic life.

It is not a certainity, but it is a possibility. Since in his point of view this is inevitable (and peace between the two point of views utopia) then he prefers to resolve the problem at the root instead of risking the outcome.

Naturally he can be proven wrong in practice, but this doesn't change the soundness of his logic.

Grimwick wrote...
This is flawed example of inductive reasoning, he has seen a specific example and has generilised to the point of insensibility.

And here we return to the fact that since you don't agree with his point of view you see the thing only in a certain way.

I can agree with you that his point of view is too rigid, but this doesn't change the fact that given the parameters at his disposal the solution can only be provided with the help of point of views to make a projection of what it will happen, and if the risk is worth it.

Depending on the point of views the way you see the various probablities (and their probable outcomes) changes, and so it changes the way you approach them.

Grimwick wrote...
Science works on the basis of observation -> repeated observation -> induction -> explanation -> proof/counter-evidence and discredititation.

True. But the fact is that seldomly logic has the luxury of being able to be tied to all parameters containing evidence in themselves (and so you lack all the chain: how can you provide evidence on a thing you don't know in anticipation the outcome and that you can never be sure about?).

Many times you have to do a study of a problem that has parameters you cannot have evidence upon, and so it is there that point of views enter in the play.

In science this happens seldomly. In philosophical matters it happens almost always.

Grimwick wrote...
The logic of the reasoning and explanation is independent of the logic of the induction; the logic of the entire theory is only as strong as the weakest part, which in this case is the induction.

The problem is: in this case you cannot do otherwise.

Whatever logic you can build to resolve the problem it will be based on your point of view concerning some parameters, since there's no evidence about them and there will never be. Also if you could come to the point of saying (and "waiting" to have this result would be a risk in itself, a great one at that), for example: "there's 80% of probability of this not happening", the 20% probability of it happening for a thing so serious it is more than enough to make you behave accordingly if your point of view is that the risk is not worth it.

Grimwick wrote...
The SC makes the classic mistake of inducing a parameter from insufficient evidence and the overall strength of the argument is destroyed - it is illogical to make solutions on a premise which hasn't been proven to be true just as is is illogical to make solutions on a false premise which is known to be false

And I repeat: all you say would be perfectly true if the parameters on where to base the logic would be all estabilished as evidence.

In this case, however, they aren't, so how can you do otherwise?

Whatever logic you deduce from that problem it will be necessarilty tied to insufficient evidence on many of them. There's no way out of this.

When you say: "you don't know if this will happen so it is based on insufficient evidence", it works both ways. It is true that the SC doesn't know what it will happen, but so do you.

Still, since logic is a philosophical study this is perfectly plausible if the parameters are out of your control. You just make hypothesis based on your point of views and weight the positives and negatives, that are, again, filtered by your point of view in the matter.

Grimwick wrote...
An example: Say you wanted to model the motion of a parachutist through mathematical means. You create a parameter however that for the first half of the flight there is no air resistance acting on the parachutist. he creates a subsequent equation for the motion and deduces that the parachutist will take X amount ot time in order to hit the ground. this is a false conclusion. It may be 100% accurate in his given equation and model, but it is a flawed model and the result is therefore incorrect.

Good. But if you cannot do otherwise and you HAVE to resolve the problem?

This is the case here. You have no other choice. You must resolve the problem in some way and you have parameters you don't posses sure evidence upon.

Modifié par Amioran, 14 mai 2012 - 09:22 .

[Amioran]

Grimwick wrote...
This appears to be an example of two separate solutions rather than two logics. Both are trying to prevent the problem, that synthetic life will kill organic life, but B is adding a premise of their own.

As before, I have now a great motivation to believe that you really have NO idea of what logic is (or you tie the same only to certain aspects of it, not the full picture).

This is exactly the same thing as the last reply about philosophical debates that cannot contain contradictions (that I neither replied to because I was without words). You really are talking of things you know anything about, as always. ALL philsophical debates contains contradictions, why don't you study a little of philosophy, damn?

Grimwick wrote...
You can't then compare them as having different logical conclusions from the same data because they actually have different logical conclusions from different data.  This is a problem you will always make in this type of comparison.

The data is NOT different. It is the point of view approaching the same that is.

OMG.

This invalidates itself as a reason due to the nature of it's solution. If their justification is 'we lost many people, let's not take a risk and let it happen again' and the solution is 'kill all organics to prevent them making synthetics' then it is simply the wrong solution.

And why it is a wrong solution? Because you don't like it? What kind of idiocy is that?

It is a perfect solution, as I demonstrated after. It removes the possibility of having no control over the thing, it removes the gamble part, it resolves the problem at the root.

A perfect logical solution to a problem.

The fact that you don't agree with it (as it is obvious on the way you approach one logic vs. the other) it doesn't change that it is perfectly plausibile.
 

This is not necessarily a solution to the original problem per se, it is a result of choosing to make peace. The logical justifications of an argument or solution are independent of how the results turn out, it is only dependent on projected results.

Maybe because in those parameters there could only be projected results? Logic B base itself on the point of view that peace is necessary to resolve the problem, but naturally it is a projection, because you cannot know in anticipation what the outcome will be (and the same in logic A).

This was to make you understand how much important are point of views for what it concerns logic.

As I said above, the logical justification is independent of the observed outcome and it is only dependent on the expected outcome.

And how can you do otherwise? Do you understand that there are parameters out of your control in the problem?

No, it doesn't. but using a parameter you cannot control in an absolute decision is stupid - you are doomed to failure.

 
Failure of what? You always give these two liners when facts prove otherwise. I proved you that logic B is not "doomed to failure" just because it resolves the problem at the root, and in one of the two scenarios even much better than the other.

So, where this "failure" come from is seriously beyond me. Are you going to try to climb mirrors for much more?

As for parameters you cannot control, they are ALWAYS there, in every philosophical problem. Hell, they are present either in scientific and mathematical problems sometimes. There's always some parameter that's out of your control and you have to anyway consider in abstract concepts. So, in a philosophical study there are a LOT of parameters out of your control.

They are there in the problem itself. Hell, the "proofs" you quote as "bad logic" on the SC part are all parameters that you cannot control and you have no sure evidence upon. So I don't get why if for the SC using them it is "bad" for you doing the same is not.

This is what the SC does, creates a parameter out of nowhere for a problem -a parameter he cannot control - and then he decides to act on it.

What the hell are you babbling about? The parameters you cannot control are more on the other logic (I see you pondered about the summary so well...) the logic of the SC removes them to the minimum of one parameter, that's neither out of your control, but you just decide to don't care about it because it is risky and for your point of view it is a risk that is futile.

So it actually removes all possibility of error in the solution of the problem, differently from the other logic (that in fact CAN have a negative outcome from it).

I seriously don't know what did you read.

No, the analogy is an unfair comparison. These are decisions based on different parameters and therefore no logical argument can be said to be better - because of that. One is not equal to the other because the logic is equal but only because the comparison is unequal.

The comparison is the same. The problem is the same. The philosophical study is the same. The parameters taken in consideration are approached obviously in a different way because different are the point of views, but this doesn't change minimally the nature of the problem, nor the "comparison" (it is the same, from another angle, that changes depending on the point of view).

But in reality I don't either know if you now play this card because you saw yourself cornered, it can also be. I've seen everything happen in this forum...

No, what we have seen is that different conclusions are reached when we have different information. This only shows that the SC was incorrect to act on insufficient evidence.

Different information? Of what the hell are you talking about?

The information at beginning was exactly the same. Two different point of views approached the solution weightning more some parameters in confront to others, as it is obvious, but this always happen in every logic.

As for you sentence "this only shows the SC was incorrect", are you serious? I proven you (with the results that can happen in the two logics) that actually the contrary happens and you cannot do anything more than insist "no, but it is as I said". It doesn't act on insufficient evidence, just because in certain parameters there's no evidence, but it is the same also for every other logic based on the same problem.

When you have a parameter you cannot have a sure outcome upon, that's out of your control, then point of views take precendence.

Do you still want to continue reading only what you care to read and not pondering minimally about what you are saying? Tell me so I stop wasting my time.

Modifié par Amioran, 14 mai 2012 - 09:13 .

[markshaxted]

My biggest issue is that this is the opinion of one being... The catalyst. The same being that originally could not see an alternative to its solution, until the crucible was introduced and changed the catalyst.

This is what makes the logic flawed, is that the information the catalyst used to come to that logical conclusion wasn't complete. This is also what makes the decisions you can make flawed. These are three choices based on what the catalyst views as the only possible alternatives.

Whether you or I are able to come up with the actual best solution and what the game ending "should" have been is unlikely for those reasons, but I believe I at least provide a logical line of thinking that does derail the catalyst as being all knowing and having a foolproof solution. It's a solution based on current knowledge.

The fact that Shepard made it to the crucible to be face to face with the starchild shows that as a result of the reapers life has begun to advance quicker. This is because of what each civilisation leaves behind, the prothean beacons, the black boxes Liara makes etc. this clearly shows that the catalyst has itself only come up with a temporary solution at best, and so it is impossible to say this logic is foolproof.

[DaJe]

Windninja47 wrote...

Or the reapers could, I dunno, tell people to stop making sentient machines?

Besides, an ending that needs this much explanatian can't be a very good one now can it?

I think this is an important point most of the 4 people who like the ending ignore.

[OlympusMons423]

In story terms... if Shep knew the arguments, but was willing to fight for what they knew, to survive..... once we got the final victory then we could be arguing over more interesting things than defending a clunky ending.

In general I think they should have kept the Reapers a mystery. We don't need to know more than they want to destroy us. We don't need to know more than we all just want to survive. Throw in hints of us surviving may create really huge problems down the road would be fine. Maybe have the very last reaper say something to Shepard... about what they really just did. NOW the next game in the series becomes about using organic life, what is actually causing the problem, having to race to figure out ways to avoids this.

[Grimwick]

Amioran wrote...

Grimwick wrote...
Of course, using examples of things which aren't as abstract as mathematics is a lot harder but we are still left with some. I am pretty certain that I exist, for as Descartes said: I am able to doubt my own existance. Logic can exist as a foolproof concept. If A=B and B=C then A=C. A will always be equal to C - that is foolproof logic right there.

Again, that's not logic, that's a mathematical equation.

FACEPALM

Try to provide a logic solution to that problem without including your point of view in the matter (that it happens when you have parameters out of your control and hypothesis) and without basing your logic on assumptions of "what it could be if...".

If you can do it then I will gladly admit I am wrong.

I can't because we do not have sufficient evidence to make a fully educated decision. Without that evidence you cannot solve the problem objectively.

Grimwick wrote...
He induces another parameter - that from the observation made, created synthetics will ALWAYS kill and exterminate all organic life.

It is not a certainity, but it is a possibility. Since in his point of view this is inevitable then he prefers to resolve the problem at the root instead of risking the outcome.

If he believes it is inevitable then he makes the assumption that it is a certainty. That's what inevitable means.

Grimwick wrote...
Science works on the basis of observation -> repeated observation -> induction -> explanation -> proof/counter-evidence and discredititation.

True. But the fact is that seldomly logic has the luxury of being able to be tied to all parameters containing evidence in themselves (and so you lack all the chain: how can you provide evidence on a thing you don't know in anticipation the outcome and that you can never be sure about?).

If the SC is creating a solution for a problem, he will need evidence for the solution to work. If you admit he has none then you admit his solution is made in blind hope. This makes his choice to follow this solution not a rational or logical one, but a choice made in desperation.

Still, since logic is a philosophical study this is perfectly plausible if the parameters are out of your control. You just make hypothesis based on your point of views and weight the positives and negatives, that are, again, filtered by your point of view in the matter.

Logic itself may be in the realms of philosophy but the application of logic is another matter. If the parameters are out of your control, logically, you find a way to change those parameters or to find evidence/a solution which controls them. You don't then continue to apply an idea to something with such flawed assumptions - that is a misapplication of logic.

Good. But if you cannot do otherwise and you HAVE to resolve the problem?

He may have to solve the problem, but it's not as if he has limited time or something. After the event that took place the SC would have had a very long time in which to come up with new solutions or wait it out for more evidence for example. He didn't need to make a decision instantaneously on such poor information and the fact that he did implies poor thinking.

[Grimwick]

[quote]Amioran wrote...

[quote]Grimwick wrote...
This appears to be an example of two separate solutions rather than two logics. Both are trying to prevent the problem, that synthetic life will kill organic life, but B is adding a premise of their own.[/quote]
As before, I have now a great motivation to believe that you really have NO idea of what logic is (or you tie the same only to certain aspects of it, not the full picture).[/quote]
There is no such thing as a 'different logic'. All logic is the same. These are different applications of logic - if they were applying logic to the same problem then both individuals would have reached the same conclusion, allow me to demonstrate later.

[quote]Grimwick wrote...
You can't then compare them as having different logical conclusions from the same data because they actually have different logical conclusions from different data.  This is a problem you will always make in this type of comparison.[/quote]

The data is NOT different. It is the point of view approaching the same that is.
[/quote]
This is where you are incorrect.

When you create an initial problem, it contains a set amount of data within or around it. In the example, you stated that created synthetics have been seen to kill organics and this is likely to happen again.

Person A went for the root and killed organics as a solution (rofl), person B decided that organics and synthetics have the potential to coexist. In this case, person B is working from a very different set of assumptions as to A here. Person B believes that the chance of coexistance is high enough to justify a gambled outcome, whereas A doesn't.

This means that the parameters that both people have put in place are unequal, ie person A puts less value into the chance of coexistance than person B. Although you might argue that this is due to a different opinion, it doesn't change the fact that the base parameters/assumptions are now DIFFERENT. If the parameters were of equal value then both A and B would have come to the same conclusion because the logic used by both would have to be identical to be 100% correct. In this example, because they come to different conclusions with the same logic, they must have had different parameters assigned different values. if their logic assigning those parameters was also perfect, then they would have assigned the same values to each parameter. Ergo, one of the people has used incorrect logic somewhere along the path.

[quote][quote]
This invalidates itself as a reason due to the nature of it's solution. If their justification is 'we lost many people, let's not take a risk and let it happen again' and the solution is 'kill all organics to prevent them making synthetics' then it is simply the wrong solution.[/quote]

And why it is a wrong solution? Because you don't like it? What kind of idiocy is that?

It is a perfect solution, as I demonstrated after. It removes the possibility of having no control over the thing, it removes the gamble part, it resolves the problem at the root.

A perfect logical solution to a problem.[/quote]
No, because you have the initial problem: we need to stop synthetics killing organics; then you create the solution:kill organics with synthetics. 
That's how cyclical the logic of person A is.

 
[quote]
This was to make you understand how much important are point of views for what it concerns logic. [/quote]
No, somewhere along the line in one of the people's arguments there will have been a logical fallacy or mistake. Otherwise they would have both logically came to the same conclusion. I reject the premise that 2 solutions to a problem are 100% equally valid/logical.


[quote] 
Failure of what? You always give these two liners when facts prove otherwise. I proved you that logic B is not "doomed to failure" just because it resolves the problem at the root, and in one of the two scenarios even much better than the other.[/quote]
if one worked better than the other then that one is most probably the more logical solution - therefore the logic used to reach the other solution is most probably wrong.



[quote][quote]
This is what the SC does, creates a parameter out of nowhere for a problem -a parameter he cannot control - and then he decides to act on it.[/quote]

What the hell are you babbling about? The parameters you cannot control are more on the other logic (I see you pondered about the summary so well...) the logic of the SC removes them to the minimum of one parameter, that's neither out of your control, but you just decide to don't care about it because it is risky and for your point of view it is a risk that is futile.

So it actually removes all possibility of error in the solution of the problem, differently from the other logic (that in fact CAN have a negative outcome from it).

I seriously don't know what did you read.[/quote]
You obviously didn't read my point too well either when I pointed out that using parameters you can't control is flawed logic.


[quote]
But in reality I don't either know if you now play this card because you saw yourself cornered, it can also be. I've seen everything happen in this forum...[/quote]
What I said wasn't anything to do with being 'cornered', it was to do with rebuking your fallacious analogy.

[quote][quote]
No, what we have seen is that different conclusions are reached when we have different information. This only shows that the SC was incorrect to act on insufficient evidence.
[/quote]

Different information? Of what the hell are you talking about?

The information at beginning was exactly the same. Two different point of views approached the solution weightning more some parameters in confront to others, as it is obvious, but this always happen in every logic.

When you have a parameter you cannot have a sure outcome upon, that's out of your control, then point of views take precendence.
[/quote]

Already pointed this out but one point of view must be wrong from a logical standpoint.
A point of view can be wrong if it is a point of view based on logic, or the perceived nature of such.

[someguy1231]

As I said in another thread, if you need to explain why an ending is good, then it isn't. A good ending should be self-evident and need no explanation.

[JBONE27]

someguy1231 wrote...

As I said in another thread, if you need to explain why an ending is good, then it isn't. A good ending should be self-evident and need no explanation.

It's the exactly like jokes.  If you have to explain it, it isn't funny.

[Repearized Miranda]

DaJe wrote...

Windninja47 wrote...

Or the reapers could, I dunno, tell people to stop making sentient machines?

Besides, an ending that needs this much explanatian can't be a very good one now can it?

I think this is an important point most of the 4 people who like the ending ignore.

No, but if the audience is unwilling to fill in the blanks themselves (besides expletives if it is bad). Open-Endings or speculation is not as bad as people make it out to be; they are basing the anger from PR statements.

I think to that alot of people are not taking a few steps back which is something an creator should do when something is created; yet, the audience is creating something - opinions; however, not everyone who makes them takes a few steps back when they need to.

[Repearized Miranda]

JBONE27 wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

As I said in another thread, if you need to explain why an ending is good, then it isn't. A good ending should be self-evident and need no explanation.

It's the exactly like jokes.  If you have to explain it, it isn't funny.

True, but there are people who just don't get it. Even the funniest of jokes are explained because of this, but as you said, the explanation ruins it. However, sometimes you do have to do that and that's nicer than calling the ones who didn't get it "Idiots!"

In this situation, BW (though not calling folks such names although with the way some are "protesting") are explaining it because well some didn't get it. Not everybody thinks the ending is good nor does everyone think it's bad. They just didn't get it.

If everybody got the joke, we could all go home regardless if it evokes laughter. What does make this bad is that everybody will just go "Oh, okay!" now and this doesn't sound like a good reaction, but don't fault the comedian totally if the joke isn't received well if at all.

It's the artist to audience relationship. This relationship doesn't exist if both sides don't come to an agreement. They're extending a branch, but not everyone is going to take it.