365 réponses à ce sujet

[The Razman]

Il Divo wrote...

The Razman wrote...

I don't mean to be rude ... but there does exist an entire section within the OP which explains exactly why what you've just said is incorrect.

I'm afraid not. If the Star Child is employing logic, you should be able to point to where in his dialogue I can find a premise to support his conclusion. Since his claim relies on a slippery slope, an informal fallacy, it requires some form of backing in order to meet the demands of logic.

Anything can be justified on the grounds that "X is inevitable".

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

[The Razman]

JBONE27 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

GhostV9 wrote...

The Razman wrote...
So it creates a force which will make sure that technology in the
galaxy never advances beyond a certain point by destroying the most
technologically developed civilisations every 50,000 years, thus keeping
the technology level below a safe threshold.

The problem is, that "force" is the very same thing he's trying to prevent from happening.

But in the eyes of the Synthetics, they are preventing it. They see no distinction between keeping a living walking talking organic and having their essence stored as genetic code in a machine. Because they aren't organic, they don't understand organic.

But the thing that created them was supposedly organic, therefore it would recognize the difference.  Therefore faulty logic.

What exactly are you basing that on?

[ZIPO396]

I just find the Starkid to be an idiot. It thinks synthesis is the best option as he says it will end the cycles. It doesn't stop his fear that is species making synthetics that then will wipe out the new hybrids. Yet it still thinks it's the best idea. Silly child.

Well that should prove that the Starchilds logic is in fact not without flaws.

Modifié par ZIPO396, 11 mai 2012 - 04:56 .

[JBONE27]

The Razman wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

GhostV9 wrote...

The Razman wrote...
So it creates a force which will make sure that technology in the
galaxy never advances beyond a certain point by destroying the most
technologically developed civilisations every 50,000 years, thus keeping
the technology level below a safe threshold.

The problem is, that "force" is the very same thing he's trying to prevent from happening.

But in the eyes of the Synthetics, they are preventing it. They see no distinction between keeping a living walking talking organic and having their essence stored as genetic code in a machine. Because they aren't organic, they don't understand organic.

But the thing that created them was supposedly organic, therefore it would recognize the difference.  Therefore faulty logic.

What exactly are you basing that on?

Simple logic.  Synthetic life, unlike organic, does not replicate itself unknowingly.  It does not evolve from simple replicating molicules into more complex organisms.  All technology gets created by something, and since there is a desire to perserve organics within the beings who created the Reapers, it is logical to think that they are organic themselves.

[Il Divo]

The Razman wrote...

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

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

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

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

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

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 mai 2012 - 04:51 .

[Icinix]

Rombomm wrote...

So how do you explain the Reapers creating the Mass Relays so that we would "develop along the paths we desire" and outright CONTROLLING the Geth in order to harvest organics?

By introducing Geth code into the Reapers and having organics develop along the paths they desire - the limit / reduce / prevent the potential for suprise technology they may be useful against the Reapers.

Once Organics wiped out - they can discard do whatever they want with the Geth.

[Mettyx]

slimgrin wrote...

Argument 4: The star child was a retarded idea.

Would you please stop calling it that, it's just an ancient AI in a logical loop.

[MrMcDoll]

Mettyx wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Argument 4: The star child was a retarded idea.

Would you please stop calling it that, it's just an ancient AI in a logical loop.

It looks a lot like a starry child to me!

[xsdob]

Random Jerkface wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Saren also used faulty logic,

And ended up dying because of it.

And this diminishes the point how? The starchild used faulty logic, all ending choices result in it either going offline or being destroyed.

[Sal86]

Mettyx wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Argument 4: The star child was a retarded idea.

Would you please stop calling it that, it's just an ancient AI in a logical loop.

People refer to it as the star child because the writers named him that. Don't put all the blame on us.

[Sgt Stryker]

The geth.

[/thread]

[favoritehookeronthecitadel]

#lol

[The Razman]

Il Divo wrote...

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

Aliens invading is not a logical thing to happen given what we know. Machines rising up and destroying organic life, given that we've spent three games seeing the effects of synthetics raging war on organics (the Geth) and exploring the consequences of machines having intelligence with EDI ... is not an illogical thing to happen. In fact, we've seen it happening with the Geth, as I've said.

Sorry, but you're not making a very good case here. The Starchild has decided that its inevitable. That's all you really need to know unless you have something which invalidates its premise, and all the evidence we have on its premise actually supports it instead.

[favoritehookeronthecitadel]

RArW

[What a Succulent Ass]

xsdob wrote...

And this diminishes the point how? The starchild used faulty logic, all ending choices result in it either going offline or being destroyed.

Because unlike Saren's, the narrative presents the Catalyst's logic as correct.

[The Razman]

JBONE27 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

GhostV9 wrote...

The Razman wrote...
So it creates a force which will make sure that technology in the
galaxy never advances beyond a certain point by destroying the most
technologically developed civilisations every 50,000 years, thus keeping
the technology level below a safe threshold.

The problem is, that "force" is the very same thing he's trying to prevent from happening.

But in the eyes of the Synthetics, they are preventing it. They see no distinction between keeping a living walking talking organic and having their essence stored as genetic code in a machine. Because they aren't organic, they don't understand organic.

But the thing that created them was supposedly organic, therefore it would recognize the difference.  Therefore faulty logic.

What exactly are you basing that on?

Simple logic.  Synthetic life, unlike organic, does not replicate itself unknowingly.  It does not evolve from simple replicating molicules into more complex organisms.  All technology gets created by something, and since there is a desire to perserve organics within the beings who created the Reapers, it is logical to think that they are organic themselves.

That's not logic. That's just conjecture. What's to stop the Starchild being an AI built by other AIs? Or just one of a race of synthetic life forms?

Even if you were correct, just because something is a synthetic and was created by organics doesn't in any way mean it has to follow organic ideals, moral, logic or ethical standards. We don't have the first bit of information on who created the Starchild, or what the Starchild even is, to make any logical deductions like you're making.

[xsdob]

Random Jerkface wrote...

xsdob wrote...

And this diminishes the point how? The starchild used faulty logic, all ending choices result in it either going offline or being destroyed.

Because unlike Saren's, the narrative presents the Catalyst's logic as correct.

Really? Because my shepard pretty much said it doesn't understand anything. Right after it said that they preserve organics in reaper form.

[What a Succulent Ass]

xsdob wrote...

Really? Because my shepard pretty much said it doesn't understand anything. Right after it said that they preserve organics in reaper form.

I didn't say your Shepard, I said the narrative. In order to complete the game, Shepard (and the player, by extension) is forced to accept the Catalyst's premise. That is a narrative choice.

[Sal86]

The Razman wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

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

Aliens invading is not a logical thing to happen given what we know. Machines rising up and destroying organic life, given that we've spent three games seeing the effects of synthetics raging war on organics (the Geth) and exploring the consequences of machines having intelligence with EDI ... is not an illogical thing to happen. In fact, we've seen it happening with the Geth, as I've said.

Sorry, but you're not making a very good case here. The Starchild has decided that its inevitable. That's all you really need to know unless you have something which invalidates its premise, and all the evidence we have on its premise actually supports it instead.

I don't agree with your assertions about the Geth. Your argument in the OP is that if the Geth were more advanced, they would have spread beyond the veil and attacked other organics. It was not lack of tech or firepower that prevented them from spreading beyond the veil, it was an active decision that they made not to attack organics and to spare the remaining Quarians. Beyong this point, any hostile behaviour from the Geth is only as a result of self defence or Reaper interference. It still doesn't matter who started the morning war, it ended in the synthetics sparing the organics, which is directly counter the catalyst's argument.

[xsdob]

Random Jerkface wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Really? Because my shepard pretty much said it doesn't understand anything. Right after it said that they preserve organics in reaper form.

I didn't say your Shepard, I said the narrative. In order to complete the game, Shepard (and the player, by extension) is forced to accept the Catalyst's premise. That is a narrative choice.

Alright than.

[RocketManSR2]

The faulty logic of the Catalyst is no longer a problem in my playthrough.

Modifié par RocketManSR2, 11 mai 2012 - 05:25 .

[Kaelef]

I don't think there's any place in the universe where the term "proof" is more abused than on BSN.

[JBONE27]

The Razman wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

GhostV9 wrote...

The Razman wrote...
So it creates a force which will make sure that technology in the
galaxy never advances beyond a certain point by destroying the most
technologically developed civilisations every 50,000 years, thus keeping
the technology level below a safe threshold.

The problem is, that "force" is the very same thing he's trying to prevent from happening.

But in the eyes of the Synthetics, they are preventing it. They see no distinction between keeping a living walking talking organic and having their essence stored as genetic code in a machine. Because they aren't organic, they don't understand organic.

But the thing that created them was supposedly organic, therefore it would recognize the difference.  Therefore faulty logic.

What exactly are you basing that on?

Simple logic.  Synthetic life, unlike organic, does not replicate itself unknowingly.  It does not evolve from simple replicating molicules into more complex organisms.  All technology gets created by something, and since there is a desire to perserve organics within the beings who created the Reapers, it is logical to think that they are organic themselves.

That's not logic. That's just conjecture. What's to stop the Starchild being an AI built by other AIs? Or just one of a race of synthetic life forms?

Even if you were correct, just because something is a synthetic and was created by organics doesn't in any way mean it has to follow organic ideals, moral, logic or ethical standards. We don't have the first bit of information on who created the Starchild, or what the Starchild even is, to make any logical deductions like you're making.

Okay, you obviously don't know what you are talking about.  I make it a habit to not argue with people who are willfully ignorant.  Good day sir.

[Zaidra]

more people are angry about the fact that the starchild even exists then about what he said. Bioware introduced a new character in literally the last five minutes of the game, and that's sloppy. Whether he uses "logic" (or what you seem to think is logic) or not, the fact that Shepard ended the war between the geth and quarians (or in some games he did) proves that synthetics will not always be at war with organics.

Either way, I don't even care about the starchild's logic, i just want an ending that isn't crap. Their writers ripped us off and did not give the ending we deserved, and instead of fixing it, they're just adding on (I'm not expecting much from the extended ending DLC) and that's why most people hate the starchild.

the starchild's existence lacks any kind of sense as well. Did anyone else notice that the starchild is human? The fact that the humans didn't exist when he first "created the reapers" kind of proves that he's nonexistent.... Unless he can somehow change forms, and then I would say that bioware changed their game from sci-fi to fantasy, which is also really stupid.

Modifié par Zaidra, 11 mai 2012 - 05:40 .

[Nomen Mendax]

Random Jerkface wrote...

All of that is soundproof.

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

Random is right, you mean foolproof, soundproof means that something prevents the passage of sound. 

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 11 mai 2012 - 05:38 .