365 réponses à ce sujet

[What a Succulent Ass]

The Razman wrote...

Within Shepard's lifetime, there's been two separate instances which he's observed of synthetics committing genocide against organics.

Please explain.

The only word for assuming that similar incidents would for some reason not continue to occur throughout history, and that the nature of the singularity doesn't mean that synthetics will vastly overpower organics in both intelligence and technological power meaning that such incidents would result in the destruction of organic life, is naive.

No, it's not. And I'm beginning to suspect that you're not actually aware of what a tech singularity is (that, or only apply it to a very narrow scope). A singularity mustn't necessarily take the the form of of a true intelligence (though in this case it did--mind, the geth ARE a singularity, as is EDI). Even if it did, AI =/= genius robots, =/= homicidal genius robots. We have no models from which to fashion a hypothesis. That is the point. It's merely a horizon over which our prediction models become invalid.

Attempting to undermine it by saying there's no concrete evidence is to suggest that this logic is somehow flawed, when it's based on things we see happening within the game.

What things? You keep bringing these "things" up, but not extrapolating. And I would say it's quite fair to undermine the logic of an argument that lacks any concrete evidence. That is not an argument. That is supposition. Full stop.

Now let us make the assumption (and it is quite an assumption) that a tech singularity does occur, and it does manifest as intelligent synthetic life (which is indeed true for the MEverse). Let us assume that they do indeed gain a technological superiority (partially true for the MEverse). The groundwork being laid, please answer the following:

- How can we preemptively judge the nature or intentions of these synthetics? How do we know they will be hostile? Because they are synthetic? Because they are technologically superior?
- If they are indeed hostile, how do we know it will be to the extreme of genocide/xenocide and purposeful ethnic cleansing?
- If they are indeed actively hostile, how do we know this hostility will result in mutually assured destruction and/or the obliteration of all organic life (even down to the microbes) in the galaxy?
- If war is indeed inevitable, how is it different from the various asymmetric organic conflicts?

--without using the words "eventually," "probably," "probability" or their attendant synonyms.

[Tigerman123]

HellbirdIV wrote...

The Catalyst says that Synthesis is the "Final evolution of life".

There is no such thing as "final evolution". Ergo, the Catalyst fails at logic.

1620s, "an opening of what was rolled up," from L. evolutionem (nom. evolutio) "unrolling (of a book)," noun of action from evolvere (see evolve). Used in various senses in medicine, mathematics, and general use, including "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing" (1660s). Modern use in biology, of species, first attested 1832 by Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not found in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists popularized evolution.

The word evolution doesn't have to be used to mean evolution via natural selection

Modifié par Tigerman123, 11 mai 2012 - 07:08 .

[HellbirdIV]

Tigerman123 wrote...

Evolution doesn't have to be used to mean evolution via natural selection

Evolution via natural selection will still happen after Synthesis, so it's no "final evolution". If it somehow is meant to represent the final step "life" takes to being both synthetic and organic... Well, that's the Reapers already, who were pretty obviously much, much better at being hybrids than brittle-bone-disease-man limping out of his ship.

Modifié par HellbirdIV, 11 mai 2012 - 07:10 .

[Sal86]

It doesn't result in the extinction of organics because the synthetics aren't as overpowered as the Reapers. Which they aren't because the Reapers have been making sure technology doesn't get advanced enough for them to be. Kind of disproving your own logic there, aren't you?

No, I'm not. Your argument again relies on supposition. You're assuming that the reapers are in fact delaying the advancement of AI. Again looking to the empirical evidence, they actually increase the capabilities of AI. You're also assuming that a more advanced AI than the Geth would automatically be inclined to wipe out organic life. Take the morning war as an example again. The crucial point here is where the Quarians flee Rannoch and the Geth choose not to persue.

Any organic civ can only create a synthetic that they themelves are capable of understanding (otherwise they can't design it in the first place), so a synthetic we create can't be all that much more advanced than us. Where is the AI that can kerbstom us easily going to come from?

And as I said in the OP, the argument of "something happening once =/= it's inevitable" isn't viable in the slightest when the consequence for it happening when synthetics are powerful enough to destroy all organic life is annihilation. There's no coming back from that ... you have to be 100% sure that's not going to happen or there's no point. And unless you have some evidence to suggest that it won't happen again, the fact that its happened as recently as Shepard's own lifetime is evidence enough that the Starchild's logic is based on reasonable evidence.

What in Shepard's lifetime are you referring to? I don't remember the game where all organic life was wiped out forever.

I used this analogy when I was talking with someone else. If you had a 5-year-old son who had a disease, and it went into remission ... if the doctor said to you "We could amputate your son's legs now and it'll make sure there's 100% no chance of the disease coming back, or we could do nothing and hope that it won't. We have no idea what the chances are of it coming back, but the disease has struck before and there's no plausible reason to suggest it won't happen again". What would you choose?

That's not a fair analagy at all. It's more akin to killing the child on the premise that you can have another. In fact there isn't really a satisfactory analagy for wiping out trillions of people in order to save potential future people. If there isn't the same as a part of one child's body.

The other sticking point is the idea that synthetics would wipe out all organic forevermore and it could never come back. Why would synthetics feel the need to do this? To seek every amoeba and plancton and destroy it utterly. Even if they did, are they then going to patrol the galaxy for the rest of all time to make sure nothing ever evolves again? The point here is, there is coming back from being wiped out, unless the synthetics are willing to do the above.

Modifié par Sal86, 11 mai 2012 - 07:15 .

[hangmans tree]

I cannot take it anymore. Explanation this, theory that, indoctrination who, black matter where...

You cant even blink not to step on someones di©k.

When something, be it "starchild", "I see dead people", Casper or the Cunundruit, is taking a free will and the right to self-determination from all organic sentient life I call it a day and go to war, coz its the epitomy of bullsheet I can take. Logic or no logic.

Reapers should be kind enough to lie down a petition with the Council if we wanna be 'put to sleep', or processed into a higher state of conciousness, to avoid, like, synthetic reeducation by depopulation and extermination.

"we do it for your own good!", but "we dont care what you have to say", "we expect you to die, coz all life may, or may not, be eradicated by synthetics...".

:huh:whut?

[Amioran]

Random Jerkface wrote...
No, it's not. And I'm beginning to suspect that you're not actually aware of what a tech singularity is (that, or only apply it to a very narrow scope). A singularity mustn't necessarily take the the form of of a true intelligence (though in this case it did--mind, the geth ARE a singularity, as is EDI). Even if it did, AI =/= genius robots, =/= homicidal genius robots. We have no models from which to fashion a hypothesis. That is the point. It's merely a horizon over which our prediction models become invalid.

And that's all the SC has. He has a point of view of the inevitability of that happening and it follows the same. Nobody (neither God) can be sure of what it will happen, but everybody has a point of view of what it will happen. That synthetics will whipe out all of organics inevitably that's the point of view of the SC.

Is that sure? No, naturally. And in fact if they (the Reapers) didn't remove the possibility of that happening they would not come in cicles, waiting for the events to unfold, don't you think? They would just whipe everyone since all of that is inevitable. This would be faulty logic, not what you ascribe to them.

They just follow their point of view on the matter, and that's that. This is completely logical.

Random Jerkface wrote...
- How can we preemptively judge the nature or intentions of these synthetics? How do we know they will be hostile? Because they are synthetic? Because they are technologically superior?

You cannot, but you cannot know either the contrary. You just can share a point of view in the matter and act in conformity with it. In the case of the narrative, btw, this happens, so the Reapers are, indeed, right.

It is sure it will happen in the next cycle? Naturally not, and it is for this that they give time to see what it will come out of it.

However they know (because that's their firm point of view) that all will happen again.

Random Jerkface wrote...
- If they are indeed hostile, how do we know it will be to the extreme of genocide/xenocide and purposeful ethnic cleansing?

Again, a matter of point of views. This, btw, it's all in the theme order vs. chaos.

They have seen it happens cycles after cycles, they have come to the conclusion that this is inevitable. That's their point of view and they act in conformity with that point of view.

Would you risk, knowing what the SC knows (i.e. that it always happen) of waiting too much for it to start and then you cannot overcome it? You have to take in considerations a more ample point of view.
,

Random Jerkface wrote...
--without using the words "eventually," "probably," "probability" or their attendant synonyms.

That's all you have. You base your point of view on the possibilities you know to estabilish a logical action. Nobody (neither God) can be sure of what it will happen (in this or anything else). The only difference is that his point of view is ampler and he has seen much more than you in the matter.

So it IS a matter of probability, and all actions are just a point of view on that probability. It doesn't exist a sure thing (in all particulars) in nature, but at the same time you can estabilish a point of view in the pattern (as for example the seasons cycling).

Modifié par Amioran, 11 mai 2012 - 07:40 .

[HellbirdIV]

hangmans tree wrote...

Reapers should be kind enough to lie down a petition with the Council if we wanna be 'put to sleep', or processed into a higher state of conciousness, to avoid, like, synthetic reeducation by depopulation and extermination.

Let's see the Reapers try to worm their way through Citadel beurocracy.

Harbinger: "WE HAVE FILLED OUT THESE FORMS-"
Asari Recetionist: "I'm sorry, but this is the wrong form.. You need 45802B, not 45802A..."
H: "WE ALREADY FILLED OUT THAT FORM, AND IT WAS REFUTED AS... INEFFECTIVE."
AR: "Well I'm sorry but it says right here, clear as day, you can't apply for galactic indoctrination programs with the A form, that's strictly synthetic uprisings..."
H: "BUT WE ARE YOUR SALVATION THROU-"
AR: "Oh that reminds me, sir, you can't apply for a new form to be issued if you've recently visisted Hegemony space.. Trade embargo, I'm afraid."
H: "WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH CUSTOMS WITH OUR CANNIBAL IMPORTS."
AR: "I'll have to ask my superiors about this, sir, please hold. Your call is important to us."
H: "THIS HURTS ME."

[Sal86]

HellbirdIV wrote...

hangmans tree wrote...

Reapers should be kind enough to lie down a petition with the Council if we wanna be 'put to sleep', or processed into a higher state of conciousness, to avoid, like, synthetic reeducation by depopulation and extermination.

Let's see the Reapers try to worm their way through Citadel beurocracy.

Harbinger: "WE HAVE FILLED OUT THESE FORMS-"
Asari Recetionist: "I'm sorry, but this is the wrong form.. You need 45802B, not 45802A..."
H: "WE ALREADY FILLED OUT THAT FORM, AND IT WAS REFUTED AS... INEFFECTIVE."
AR: "Well I'm sorry but it says right here, clear as day, you can't apply for galactic indoctrination programs with the A form, that's strictly synthetic uprisings..."
H: "BUT WE ARE YOUR SALVATION THROU-"
AR: "Oh that reminds me, sir, you can't apply for a new form to be issued if you've recently visisted Hegemony space.. Trade embargo, I'm afraid."
H: "WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH CUSTOMS WITH OUR CANNIBAL IMPORTS."
AR: "I'll have to ask my superiors about this, sir, please hold. Your call is important to us."
H: "THIS HURTS ME."

The real motivation for the reapers....? We will kill all civs capable of beuracracy rarrrrrrghhhhh!

[chengda85]

The Razman wrote...


Argument 2: That the Starchild's argument is cyclical (creating synthetics to kill organics in order to prevent synthetics killing organics).

This line is trotted out without the two qualifying words ... "creating synthetics to kill some organics in order to prevent synthetics killing all organics". The Reapers don't kill all life. The synthetics they're preventing from being developed would. Which is worse?

The whole point of the Reapers, and the Starchild, is that they're there to prevent organic life as a form of life from dying out. They don't care about individual species any more than we would care about individual ant colonies if we were trying to save an ant population. Their one aim is to make sure organics don't die out. It's immoral logic, because it's a logic which doesn't care that each species is unique and doesn't value the sanctity of life in the way that we, as humans, do. But the Starchild isn't human, and doesn't share those views. It's logic is impeccable ... it's morality is non-existent.

explain why the reapers care about organic life at all, so what if synthetics wipe all organic life out? why would the reapers care?

[hangmans tree]

chengda85 wrote...

The Razman wrote...


Argument 2: That the Starchild's argument is cyclical (creating synthetics to kill organics in order to prevent synthetics killing organics).

This line is trotted out without the two qualifying words ... "creating synthetics to kill some organics in order to prevent synthetics killing all organics". The Reapers don't kill all life. The synthetics they're preventing from being developed would. Which is worse?

The whole point of the Reapers, and the Starchild, is that they're there to prevent organic life as a form of life from dying out. They don't care about individual species any more than we would care about individual ant colonies if we were trying to save an ant population. Their one aim is to make sure organics don't die out. It's immoral logic, because it's a logic which doesn't care that each species is unique and doesn't value the sanctity of life in the way that we, as humans, do. But the Starchild isn't human, and doesn't share those views. It's logic is impeccable ... it's morality is non-existent.

explain why the reapers care about organic life at all, so what if synthetics wipe all organic life out? why would the reapers care?

They  want/need baby reaper? Just a guess.

[Eire Icon]

Random Jerkface wrote...

The Razman wrote...

I'm not calling her a troll because she's disagreeing. I'm calling her a troll because she added nothing other than "Wrong".

I'm not calling you wrong. I'm saying the assertion that the Catalyst's logic is "airtight" is wrong. In fourteen lines, it manages to commit several logical fouls (the extremity of its "Solution" notwithstanding), the biggest of which are an appeal to probability and the assumption as to the nature of a tech singularity. We have no single data point to extrapolate upon, and we are given no evidence that the Catalyst does either. A singularity is simply a point in which technology develops beyond our capacity, a manifestation that can occur in an infinite number of manners. To assume that the technology will be inevitably hostile is foolish. To assume that they will not only be hostile, but actively engage in genocide is also foolish. To assume they will not only be hostile, but engage in genocide, and inevitably wipe out all organic existence is bafflingly foolish. To think every singularity in all civilisations in all existence will mirror this hypothetical is just absurd. Just considering the steepness of the slippery slope this reasoning requires is giving me illogic burns.

Whether or not the catalysts logic is "Right or wrong" isn't relevent, the point is it cannot be disproved - as long as organic life exists, syntethics can be created, and as long as syntethics exist the potential for war with organics is there, and as long as the potential for war is there, the extermination of organic life is possible

[DaJe]

So Shepard has his pilot romancing his Ship, which saved his ass many times over while just comming back from Rannoch where Quarians and Geth are living together in peace afterall and you don't even have the option to tell Casper to **** off because his ASSUMPTION is wrong.

This is just one of the major themes beeing broken in this ending. It contradicts what you have accomplished and witnissed along the way.

I would agree that the strachild's logic can be valid, if it wasn't fundamentally short sighted and wrong as proven by the game it self.

Organics will always fight against each other, once they have tools to fight with. It doesn't take Synthetics for war. But as they progress they will come to the conclusion that working together is better than against each other.
Atleast that is a future to fight for rather than eliminating all organics before they learn how to use rocks and sticks as weapons.

Modifié par DaJe, 11 mai 2012 - 08:23 .

[Sal86]

Did anyone post the flow chart btw? I don't know who created it so I can't give them credit but here:

[legion999]

Eire Icon wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

The Razman wrote...

I'm not calling her a troll because she's disagreeing. I'm calling her a troll because she added nothing other than "Wrong".

I'm not calling you wrong. I'm saying the assertion that the Catalyst's logic is "airtight" is wrong. In fourteen lines, it manages to commit several logical fouls (the extremity of its "Solution" notwithstanding), the biggest of which are an appeal to probability and the assumption as to the nature of a tech singularity. We have no single data point to extrapolate upon, and we are given no evidence that the Catalyst does either. A singularity is simply a point in which technology develops beyond our capacity, a manifestation that can occur in an infinite number of manners. To assume that the technology will be inevitably hostile is foolish. To assume that they will not only be hostile, but actively engage in genocide is also foolish. To assume they will not only be hostile, but engage in genocide, and inevitably wipe out all organic existence is bafflingly foolish. To think every singularity in all civilisations in all existence will mirror this hypothetical is just absurd. Just considering the steepness of the slippery slope this reasoning requires is giving me illogic burns.

Whether or not the catalysts logic is "Right or wrong" isn't relevent, the point is it cannot be disproved - as long as organic life exists, syntethics can be created, and as long as syntethics exist the potential for war with organics is there, and as long as the potential for war is there, the extermination of organic life is possible

It's possible a human will wipe out all life on this planet and/or commit genocide. Should we kill all mothers to ensure that no humans are born who will commit the aforementioned crimes?

[Eire Icon]

legion999 wrote...

Eire Icon wrote...

Whether or not the catalysts logic is "Right or wrong" isn't relevent, the point is it cannot be disproved - as long as organic life exists, syntethics can be created, and as long as syntethics exist the potential for war with organics is there, and as long as the potential for war is there, the extermination of organic life is possible

It's possible a human will wipe out all life on this planet and/or commit genocide. Should we kill all mothers to ensure that no humans are born who will commit the aforementioned crimes?

I'm not saying the Catalysts logic is correct, I'm saying he believes it to be correct and Shepard cannot disprove it.

Modifié par Eire Icon, 11 mai 2012 - 08:58 .

[Random Geth]

Eire Icon wrote...

legion999 wrote...

Eire Icon wrote...

Whether or not the catalysts logic is "Right or wrong" isn't relevent, the point is it cannot be disproved - as long as organic life exists, syntethics can be created, and as long as syntethics exist the potential for war with organics is there, and as long as the potential for war is there, the extermination of organic life is possible

It's possible a human will wipe out all life on this planet and/or commit genocide. Should we kill all mothers to ensure that no humans are born who will commit the aforementioned crimes?

I'm not saying the Catalysts logic is correct, I'm saying he believes it to be correct and Shepard cannot disprove it.

Yeah, the same way you cannot "disprove" the claims of a gibbering asylum inmate.

[onchristieroad]

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

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

[Eire Icon]

Random Geth wrote...

Eire Icon wrote...

legion999 wrote...

Eire Icon wrote...

Whether or not the catalysts logic is "Right or wrong" isn't relevent, the point is it cannot be disproved - as long as organic life exists, syntethics can be created, and as long as syntethics exist the potential for war with organics is there, and as long as the potential for war is there, the extermination of organic life is possible

It's possible a human will wipe out all life on this planet and/or commit genocide. Should we kill all mothers to ensure that no humans are born who will commit the aforementioned crimes?

I'm not saying the Catalysts logic is correct, I'm saying he believes it to be correct and Shepard cannot disprove it.

Yeah, the same way you cannot "disprove" the claims of a gibbering asylum inmate.

Well you can, it just depends on what the claims are.

[Repearized Miranda]

Sal86 wrote...

HellbirdIV wrote...

hangmans tree wrote...

Reapers should be kind enough to lie down a petition with the Council if we wanna be 'put to sleep', or processed into a higher state of conciousness, to avoid, like, synthetic reeducation by depopulation and extermination.

Let's see the Reapers try to worm their way through Citadel beurocracy.

Harbinger: "WE HAVE FILLED OUT THESE FORMS-"
Asari Recetionist: "I'm sorry, but this is the wrong form.. You need 45802B, not 45802A..."
H: "WE ALREADY FILLED OUT THAT FORM, AND IT WAS REFUTED AS... INEFFECTIVE."
AR: "Well I'm sorry but it says right here, clear as day, you can't apply for galactic indoctrination programs with the A form, that's strictly synthetic uprisings..."
H: "BUT WE ARE YOUR SALVATION THROU-"
AR: "Oh that reminds me, sir, you can't apply for a new form to be issued if you've recently visisted Hegemony space.. Trade embargo, I'm afraid."
H: "WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH CUSTOMS WITH OUR CANNIBAL IMPORTS."
AR: "I'll have to ask my superiors about this, sir, please hold. Your call is important to us."
H: "THIS HURTS ME."

The real motivation for the reapers....? We will kill all civs capable of beuracracy rarrrrrrghhhhh!

Damn! The Reapers can't even get through security and I thought Legion had it bad!!

[Chapity]

It's not just assumption that drives that drives the sc's logic. It probabilities and entropy. The longer the tech to create an ai exists, the more the variables change. The more variables, the more dangerous the entropy. Eventually, you will reach a point where something beyond the scope of any organic will have it within there power to wipe out life. Then, it's just a time bomb. The sc has seen this thing play out over, and over, and over. Remember, the sc is part of a system that values life's existence. In much the same way that a forest that has grown wild must be purged through fire, the galaxy must be cleansed of dangerous variables. They impose order on the chaos of organic life. They create systems that allow for learning our development (the citadel, the relays, etc). They give us a technology that fits the needs of space faring life (ftl, mass effect drives), and through it we even devolop some organic nuances (biotics, the prothian touch dynamics). We needn't develop these techs further because the need doesn't exist and so we stagnate basking in the apex of our civilizations. But organics have a weakness. We play god. We create synthetic life. Usually this need comes from laziness (quarians), need for mass labor that can do more than lift (prothians), or for a large usable fighting force (the republic....wait, wrong trilogy....humans and the lunar ai conundrum). This signal is the becken call for our termination, because pandoras box only opens. Now, I agree, the paradigm is flawed. It doesn't take into account the possibility of coexistence. It also derives it's conclution based in fear, a fear that Shepard obviously passes through to obtain understanding. Remember though, the geth only take an interest in you because you oppose the reapers. Had that one event (defeat of sovereign) not taken place, it's moot whether we agree or disagree with Leigon because we never meet him. Same with edi. To be sure though, faulty paradigms happen all the time to the most logical of societies. Homeland security is based faulty circular logic. So is facism. Racism. Religion, or more specific, zealotry. No one is immune. Not even synthetic life, apparently.

[Eire Icon]

onchristieroad wrote...

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

Shepard has no choice but to accept it, because he cannot disprove it

Whether or not the Catalyst is correct is irrelevent as he believes it to be correct. Shepard has nothing to bargin with, and has no leverage or power to force the catalysts hand. People are dying as the conversation takes place

Shepard is given 3 choices, whether he likes those choices or not is again irrelevent. If he does not make a choice the cycle continues and all advanced organic life will be harvested

If someone is trying to shoot me because they believe I'm the devil my main concern is not why they believe I'm the devil, or persuading them I'm not, its making sure they don't shoot me

[lillitheris]

You can’t ‘disagree’ with logic. It is correct, or incorrect. It’s not a matter of opinion.

What you can disagree with are the premises and lemmas, and the result of the application of certain logic to the former.

So, whereas people are using an oversimplification that quite well conveys the absurdity of the premises and the eventual conclusions, you’re using semantics to argue a point that…well, does nothing to actually explain the situation.

So, let me try to explain it this way: even if we grant the premises the Catalyst uses, its solution is still suboptimal.

But, as I am fond of saying, it is what it is. We can pretend that the asinine scenario plays out because the Catalyst is really just a dumb VI programmed by some stupendously idiotic or psychotic beings sometime in the past.

At the same time, however, people are well within their rights to criticize BW for what seems like laughably poor writing since the little evidence we have certainly does not support the theory that the Catalyst was intended to be considered an idiot VI.

Modifié par lillitheris, 11 mai 2012 - 12:00 .

[tobiasks]

Hi Razman, very well written, but I would not call it soundproof. I am unsure if you read Gatt9's post on page 1, because atleast you did not reply to him, but he pretty much explains why it is indeed not soundproof.