365 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

The Razman wrote...
organic life is never going to wipe itself out.

This is an unsupportable claim. You can say the probability of organic life wiping itself out it X or Y but you cannot say NEVER.

That is a logical fallacy.

Also, this. ^

Not sure how I missed that line.

[Chapity]

Ok, the national socialist analogy is flawed. We DID wipe out the national socialists. It had to happen. They proved, time and again, that they would conquer and weed out any culture they encountered. We eradicated hitlers Germany to the point not one symbol of it exists. Now, did we need to eliminate the populace, no, because most were oppressed under said system. Leaders were rounded up and sent to gallows, firing squads, and prison terms. Some escaped, and alot of them met there end at the hands of the mosat. Why say all of this. It's reaper logic. Destroy those who can create ai. Save those who can't. Eradicate all traces of the advanced for the sake of safety. Wait for history to repeat. It will you know

[Veneke]

The Razman wrote...

No. The distinction is that synthetics would be technologically superior because of the singularity. Organic races which gain superiority are simply superior (temporarily). They can't wipe out all organic life in the galaxy. Synthetics could.

I'm curious as to why you believe that organic life couldn't develop technology that would wipe out all organic life. As things stand, we could wipe out all human life on earth right now, and we wouldn't need synthetics to do it. Get some spaceships and a bit of time and I daresay we could do the same thing to the entire galaxy. I'd be very surprised if the organics in the ME universe didn't have a similar capability.

Except that one is plausible and backed up by past events, and the other is near-as-makes-no-difference impossible and relies on all organic life in the galaxy ignoring its self-preservation instinct in favour of a desire to kill all other organic life in the galaxy.

I don't think you're going anywhere with this, mate.

You assume that all organics have the self-preservation of all other organics at heart. There's no all-encompassing self-preservation instinct that all organic life would have to preserve every type of organic life. Such grand unity of purpose/interest on such a scale might, maybe, be achievable by synthetics, though personally I doubt it.

[Gatt9]

The Razman wrote...

Bluko wrote...

The thing about this is... what's to stop an organic race from wiping out all other forms of sentient organic life?

Nothing. The Protheans did it.

But even if they wipe out all other life ... organic life still exists. Because they haven't wiped out themselves. That's the point; organic life is never going to wipe itself out. Only synthetic life would.

Genetic experimentations releases highly virulent virus with a rest period of 6 months to a year,  and a 100% fatality rate,  done.  Oragnic life just wiped itself out.

You keep making all kinds of false assumptions that fly in the face of science in order to try and justify what may well be the worst ending in the history of video games.

[Tigerman123]

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

[Veneke]

Tigerman123 wrote...

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

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


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

[The Master Chief]

You're arguing that the Catalyst's logic is foolproof, but he says to Shepard "Our solution won't work anymore. The fact that you're standing here, the first organic ever, proves it."

So no, having the Reapers come every 50,000 years to harvest advanced civilizations to prevent the creation of synthetics that will wipe out ALL organic life is not a way to be ONE HUNDRED percent sure that the technological singularity will never be reached. We, the player, Shepard, just proved it won't work anymore. The argument then lies in whether or not the three new solutions presented by the Star Child make logical sense.

Sorry dude, but I think I just invalidated your original post. Whether or not your argument is internally logical is... irrelevant, really.

PEACE,
--- The Master Chief

Edit: For the first time ever, I find myself smiling during an ending discussion. I'm proud of myself. :happy:

Modifié par The Master Chief, 12 mai 2012 - 06:55 .

[Hunter of Legends]

Gatt9 wrote...

Genetic experimentations releases highly virulent virus with a rest period of 6 months to a year,  and a 100% fatality rate,  done.  Oragnic life just wiped itself out.

That is one ridiculously deadly virus.

You could say man made.

[The Razman]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

The Razman wrote...
organic life is never going to wipe itself out.

This is an unsupportable claim. You can say the probability of organic life wiping itself out it X or Y but you cannot say NEVER.

That is a logical fallacy.

Fine.

Organic life is never going to wipe itself out on purpose. Done.

[The Razman]

The Master Chief wrote...

You're arguing that the Catalyst's logic is foolproof, but he says to Shepard "Our solution won't work anymore. The fact that you're standing here, the first organic ever, proves it."

So no, having the Reapers come every 50,000 years to harvest advanced civilizations to prevent the creation of synthetics that will wipe out ALL organic life is not a way to be ONE HUNDRED percent sure that the technological singularity will never be reached. We, the player, Shepard, just proved it won't work anymore. The argument then lies in whether or not the three new solutions presented by the Star Child make logical sense.

Sorry dude, but I think I just invalidated your original post. Whether or not your argument is internally logical is... irrelevant, really.

PEACE,
--- The Master Chief

Edit: For the first time ever, I find myself smiling during an ending discussion. I'm proud of myself. :happy:

*sigh* No. The argument that a machine will work 100% until you smash it to pieces is not valid. Sheperd has proven a new, unforeseen variable; that organics would evolve a way to fight the Reapers over several cycles. That couldn't have been foreseen.

There's a simple term for the logical fallacy you just used which would be a much simpler and quicker way of describing it, but to be honest I'm tired as hell and annoyed at morons from all sectors at the moment, so I can't think of it.

[Amioran]

Il Divo wrote...

The reason why your argument is so funny is that it attempts to extrapolate a pattern from isolated, weak examples. Shepard spent three games fighting synthetics trying to kill him. He also spent those three games fighting organics, machine gods, mutant bugs, and whatever else your mind can think of. But of course, I don't see anyone extrapolating some pattern that war between all life is inevitable, which would actually make far more sense as a motivation. Apparently there's something special about synthetics that makes them more likely to go to war with organics than any other species. But for some odd reason, the Catalyst can't point out what that is.

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

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

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

Modifié par Amioran, 12 mai 2012 - 07:51 .

[Amioran]

Il Divo wrote...
Because you see, we don't need robots to blow ourselves to hell.

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

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

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

Modifié par Amioran, 12 mai 2012 - 07:53 .

[Gallimatia]

Once it becomes simple enough to kill something you will do it for even the smallest of opposing interest. I may kill a bug simply because it annoys me. It's easy enough to do. I'd need more incentive to kill a human. It's difficult to kill them. To hyperintelligent synthetics organics are bugs. They don't need any grand reason to kill them. Any old reason will do. Might just be that they find them disagreeable.

I'd rather not bet my life on independent hyperintelligent synthetics finding organics pleasurable. Star Child has made sure no organic has had to do that for millions of years. He has given all human generations before Shepard the chance to live free. Billions upon billions of humans have lived out their days without catching even a glimpse of his recurrent genocides. Cut him some slack.

[Veneke]

The Razman wrote...

*sigh* No. The argument that a machine will work 100% until you smash it to pieces is not valid. Sheperd has proven a new, unforeseen variable; that organics would evolve a way to fight the Reapers over several cycles. That couldn't have been foreseen.

 
It couldn't have been foreseen that something different might develop over numerous cycles? I'm not even sure how to argue against this point. It makes about as much sense as the Catalyst offering the destruction of its own kind as an option (the option easiest to achieve at that)... It's just ridiculous.
 

Amioran wrote...

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

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

I think the connection between other ways of destroying organic life and the Catalyst's logic is covered above.

As for the latter - The problem with just removing one of them is the extreme nature of the response. It doesn't make sense to destroy all advanced organic life to save some less advanced organic life from a single type of possible destruction.

[Amioran]

Veneke wrote...
I think the connection between other ways of destroying organic life and the Catalyst's logic is covered above.

And that's the problem. There's no connection between the two because one (the one of the SC) is based on cyclical patterns repeating, so that you can base a logical approach on them so that you can overcome what it will probably happen, the other ways mentioned above don't because they don't posses a pattern you can base a similar approach upon.

Veneke wrote...
As for the latter - The problem with just removing one of them is the extreme nature of the response. It doesn't make sense to destroy all advanced organic life to save some less advanced organic life from a single type of possible destruction.

All advanced organic life is capable of repeating the same thing. It is a cyclical pattern that the Catalyst has seen time and time again. The other types of destruction mentioned possess not a pattern, and so they are unprevedible in how they will be executed.

The only thing you can prevent from a logical point of view are things that happens in a cyclical pattern, and/or you can anticipate based on logical parameters, and that's the best thing you can do. The fact that other things can or cannot happen anyway it doesn't invalidate the logic behind this.

It would be like saying that preventing yourself to be killed by crossing the street without watching it is "bad logic" when you anyway can die in any moment and in any situation. The analogy is perfectly the same, and, in the same way, the fact that you can die anyway in any situation doesn't invalidate the logic behind trying to prevent the same from happening when you can.

Modifié par Amioran, 12 mai 2012 - 09:33 .

[Archer]

While i dont agree with the OP's view one thought has just sprung to mind.

The SC logic is actually explained in Game at one point but not by the SC.

To see it you will need the From the Ashes Day one DLC.

Go speak to Javik after rescuing Legion from the Geth Destroyer

[iamthedave3]

On a complete side note, I find it bizarre that sci-fi is terrified of technology. The whole technological singularity idea seems self-defeating at best. We need more sci-fi that thinks the future doesn't suck.

[Veneke]

Amioran wrote...

And that's the problem. There's no connection between the two because one (the one of the SC) is based on cyclical patterns repeating, so that you can base a logical approach on them so that you can overcome what it will probably happen, the other ways mentioned above don't because they don't posses a pattern you can base a similar approach upon.

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

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

All advanced organic life is capable of repeating the same thing. It is a cyclical pattern that the Catalyst has seen time and time again. The other types of destruction mentioned possess not a pattern, and so they are unprevedible in how they will be executed.

The only thing you can prevent from a logical point of view are things that happens in a cyclical pattern, and/or you can anticipate based on logical parameters, and that's the best thing you can do. The fact that other things can or cannot happen anyway it doesn't invalidate the logic behind this.

It would be like saying that preventing yourself to be killed by crossing the street without watching it is "bad logic" when you anyway can die in any moment and in any situation. The analogy is perfectly the same, and, in the same way, the fact that you can die anyway in any situation doesn't invalidate the logic behind trying to prevent the same from happening when you can.

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

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

[vixvicco]

It doesn't change the fact that its ridiculous that they decide its up to them to "protect" the organics. Its like killing a child before he grows up to be old enough to make mistakes. To protect him/her from making mistakes. That's silly and so is the Starchild. You have some good points, but that Catalyst is just pure evil. Just evil and that's it.

Modifié par vixvicco, 12 mai 2012 - 09:55 .

[Iluvantir]

The Star Child's 'logic' is not foolproof. It is based on assumption not verified fact. Logic based on fact is foolproof. Logic based on evidence is less so. Logic based on conjecture and assumption is fundamentally unstable.

The Star Child 'may' be right, or 'may' be wrong as the situation it wants to prevent has never happened before. Ever. If it had, there would be no life left for the Reapers to worry about.

The Star Child's logic-argument is based on a theory of a Technological Singularity. This theory is untested. It may be false. What of those other theories that organic life would evolve beyond what technology could do? Mental abilities such as TK, TP, etc. Left out of this Boss-Reaper's logic. It is just looking at one theory, postulating that if this theory is correct then the Reapers have to stop it by killing organic life once a certain tech point is reached.

No basis in fact. The Star Child does not KNOW that the Tech Singularity theory is real or not. Also, if it is real it does not KNOW that Synthetics will decide to kill all Organics. They might just decide to bugger off into Dark Space and explore for all Star Child knows.

It is simply basing its actions on "the Chance" that this could happen. Sure, there was a 300 year Geth problem... started by the Quarians. Not the Geth. Both times it came to all out war it was the organics that started it. I've heard the lame argument that the Geth, in the Morning War, must have killed many babies so that makes them evil. That is lame for this reason - the Geth were babies themselves. They were attacked so they attacked back. They had no-one to learn from other than the Quarians and their makers were hell-bent on killing them. So they learnt that lesson and fought back. And in war, the innocent are the first victims. So get over that one, please.

COULD the Star Child be right? Sure. But equally COULD it be wrong? Also, sure. To base a 30 million plus cycle of death in motion over a "possibility" and call it "logic" is itself illogical. To base this on a theory that technology will eventually start expanding beyond organics is also illogical. As tech expands so to COULD organic minds... there are so many COULDs involved as to rubbish this logic.

And as another said here, by the time the Universe hits the heat-death all Organics from the Milky Way would have been murdered by the Reapers. They would never have had the chance to evolve to their own "singularity" if there is one. And so, the Star Child and the Reapers have just fulfilled their greatest fear - to have wiped out all life in the galaxy.

Well done! Bravo, Star-Brat.

[daveyeisley]

Catalyst Logic -

1. If organic civilization is allowed to develop unchecked, they will create a synthetic intelligence that will wipe out
all organic life permanently.

This is such a broad, generalized assumption that even a rudimentary VI would spot the flaw. Nevermind an
advanced entity with untold millennia to process this premise.

Nothing anywhere could possibly prove that:

a) Organic civilization would always create synthetic intelligence.
Any synthetic intelligence would inevitably conclude that organic life must be eliminated.
c) Any synthetic intelligence would always surpass the capabilities of organic life and gain the ability to eliminate its creators.

These are absolutes. They canot be proven, and force the dismissal of other possible outcomes. Hence any conclusions based on them also fail to account for other outcomes.

2. The solution to preserving organic life is to harvest advanced civilizations before they can create a
sufficiently advanced synthetic intelligence.

Really? This is the 'best' solution that the Catalyst could come up with?

The idea of monitoring and/or guiding the development of synthetic intelligence, or assisting organic civilization directly to prevent the afore mentioned assumed outcomes was apparently dismissed? On what basis? Surely the basis for dismissal would have been more flawed than the premise for this solution?

And this is not to even consider the right of both organic civilization and synthetic intelligence to self-determinate. There is no truth or proof or even evidence to suggest that any synthetic intelligence will be unable to conclude that organic life is beneficial , valuable, and equally entitled to self-determination.

Indeed, I could postulate that it is more likely synthetic intelligence would conclude that aggression and violence are counter-productive and wasteful, and thereby attempt to avoid this in its own action as well as to assist organics with the problems that cause organics to act in such manner - but now we would be
speculating and have no basis on which to make a true conclusion.

If we question the absolutes involved in #1:

- What if organics simply do not develop synthetic intelligence?

If we allow that (a) is true:

- The possibility exists that synthetic intelligence may achieve peaceful coexistence with organic civilization.

If we allow that (a) and ( are true -

- What of the possibility that organic life would evolve beyond the capabilities of synthetic intelligence? Even my limited imagination can see ways for this to happen. The universe consists of more than mathematics, and even the ultimate synthetic intelligenceI would not grasp/process these qualities as inherently as organics do.

- What if organics are able to successfully defend themselves from synthetic aggression?

My limited, flawed, inefficient organic mind is able to take these possible outcomes into account. They simply destroy the logic of the Catalyst's 'solution'.

You may offer that the Catalyst took into account data from the outcomes of many cycles and each confirmed his
conclusion. I counter that his solution contributed to this outcome in every cycle save the first, and challenge the validity of enforcing the solution as anything other than a 'last resort'.

If the solution was used as a 'last resort', then why were other methods to avoid this outcome dismissed permanently? Even if alternative methods failed in one cycle, it does not follow they would fail in all cycles.

Modifié par daveyeisley, 12 mai 2012 - 12:03 .

[Yezdigerd]

Something I find ironic in Starchild's "logic" are the reapers themselves. They are supposedly intelligent on a level Geth cannot even imagine, yet Catalyst doesn't express any concern in the inevitability of them breaking their shackles and destroying all organic life. As far as I can see his solution invalidates the problem it supposed to solve.

Also I don't get why he needs to go full genocide and not simply bomb organic life back to the stone age, or why it leaves the mass relays around, which obviously will hasten the technological singularity it's trying to prevent.
I also find it strange how it takes starchild centuries to wipe out the space flight civilizations, yet it can basically wipe out all synthetic life instantly by shining a beam on the galaxy.
Since it's a caretaker of organic life and doing this for our benefit why doesn't Starchild simply zap the synthetics every time they get out of control?
Seems much easier then the galactic genocide approach, but maybe it would be to simple and boring.

[Tirigon]

The Razman wrote...

That was the only true point in your post.

[Tirigon]

The Razman wrote...
These people don't seem to realise that the Geth had been warring for centuries before you came along and fixed it. It doesn't matter who started the fight ... it started. If we were at a sufficient technological level for those synthetics to have the same amount of power as the Reapers, what was a non-fatal mistake which enveloped the Quarians home planet and space would've resulted in the complete destruction of all life in the galaxy.

And this is where you prove you have no clue of the game.
The Geth never intended to wipe out all organics, or even the Quarian. They could easily have pursued the Quarians and killed them all, but they didnt, because they fought only in self-defense and not to wipe others out.