739 réponses à ce sujet

[CavScout]

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

You don't need falsifiability unless you are about to conduct an experiment. This is interpretation of facts - not gathering of new ones.

Then Indoctrination Theory is Faith.

IT uses facts.

In fact it doesn't.

http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/
Yes it does

You don't know what "fact" means. Supposition and inference are not the definition.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

indoctrination).[/quote]
Shepard never even knew what the Crucible was capable of, no one in the Alliance ever did, in fact. So, there was no use for the Reapers to suggest the "destroy" ending, and if they really expected him to die in any way, the could have easily calculated the risk, and simply let Shepard die instead of showing him something he didn't even knew was possible in the first place! And if they intended to kill him, then Harbinger could have done it easily, instead of missing him on purpose, just to have to do it later.

This is even more tortuous than the actual endings, in my opinion.

[/quote]



ME2 keep Shepard alive,

keep it up, you may eventually come full circle.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...
IMAGE SNIP

Balance is in his death throes... the images are coming in fast and furious now.

[Iconoclaste]

Hadeedak wrote...

Why would Shepard be the only person in the history of the game capable of shaking off Reaper influence?

Why do all 3 endings inform you, the player, directly from the gamemakers, that Shepard became a legend by ending the threat of the Reapers, breaking the fourth wall to do so, if in 2 endings you failed?

Why do the endings have ANY differences, let alone fairly important ones (Citadel not blowing up, relays not exploding) if it's all a dream?

In fact, why do synthesis and control Shepard have a dream about winning if they just lost forever? What's the point of that?

DOn't expect an answer, if it's too hard they will simply forget you ever asked.

[CavScout]

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...So you think TIM is indocrinating Shep and Anderson?

PS: Game files don't really prove anything... they're file names.

1. Yes.
2. Yes they do. The devs use it to make clear what does what in away every dev on the tema can understate from the code team, image team to sound team.

If game files are the end all, be all, where are the files that prove Indocrination Theory?

Probably the ones that named the foliage textures where Normandy crash-landed in the ending "Dream_Foliage".

Only if you presume that files were not reused in the game, i.e. foliage from the deam sequences was retextured and used in the ending scene.

Matching the foliage from that file to that scen makes it a match. It's all the same

It then means the file name is less relevant than you've been claiming.

[CavScout]

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
If the Catalyst controls the Citadel, why did it need Shep and why did it allow Shep to open the arms?

That's a point towards IT.

No it's not. It's a point that the Catalyst doesn't fully control the Citadel...

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...You do know why an argument from authority is fallacious, right?

You do understand that an argument has to have a point?

Does it?

You stand for nothing, no wonder you were indoctrinated so easily:devil:

Because I don't stand with you doesn't mean I don't stand for nothing. But what I stand for, is irrelevant to whether IT has any merit or not.

So if you aren't trying to prove anything what are you doing? collecting cancer causing bad vibes?

Modifié par balance5050, 13 mai 2012 - 07:25 .

[Iconoclaste]

ohupthis wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...
Shepard never even knew what the Crucible was capable of, no one in the Alliance ever did, in fact. So, there was no use for the Reapers to suggest the "destroy" ending, and if they really expected him to die in any way, the could have easily calculated the risk, and simply let Shepard die instead of showing him something he didn't even knew was possible in the first place! And if they intended to kill him, then Harbinger could have done it easily, instead of missing him on purpose, just to have to do it later.

This is even more tortuous than the actual endings, in my opinion.

ME2 keep Shepard alive,

keep it up, you may eventually come full circle.

Not a valid explanation.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 13 mai 2012 - 07:26 .

[CavScout]

jules_vern18 wrote...
This is pathetic.  I'm out.

Don't let their Argument By Fast Talking wear you down.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
If the Catalyst controls the Citadel, why did it need Shep and why did it allow Shep to open the arms?

That's a point towards IT.

No it's not. It's a point that the Catalyst doesn't fully control the Citadel...

No IT.

[dreman9999]

Hadeedak wrote...

Why would Shepard be the only person in the history of the game capable of shaking off Reaper influence?

Why do all 3 endings inform you, the player, directly from the gamemakers, that Shepard became a legend by ending the threat of the Reapers, breaking the fourth wall to do so, if in 2 endings you failed?

Why do the endings have ANY differences, let alone fairly important ones (Citadel not blowing up, relays not exploding) if it's all a dream?

In fact, why do synthesis and control Shepard have a dream about winning if they just lost forever? What's the point of that?

1.He's not.
2. He is still in the early stages and at the point is can be resisted.
From ME: retribution.

With each passing hour Grayson could feel the whispers growing stronger. More insistent. Yet eventhough Cerberus had implanted him with this horrific alien technology, his will was still his own. For now,he was still able to resist them. And he intended to hold them at bay for as long as was humanly possible.“I thought you said the transformation would only take a week,” the Illusive Man said to Dr. Nuri.They were staring down at Grayson through the one-way window in the ceiling of his cell. Kai Lengwas lurking in the shadows over by the wall, standing so still he almost seemed to disappear in thedarkness.At the back of the room, the other members of Dr. Nuri’s team were monitoring the readings on thehovering holographic screens projecting up from the individual computer stations. They were tracking andrecording everything that happened inside the cell: Grayson’s breathing, heart rate, and brain activity;changes in body and air temperature; even minute fluctuations in electrical, gravitational, magnetic, anddark energy readings emanating from the room.“You told me to proceed with caution after we nearly lost him during the implantation,” she remindedhim.“I just want to make sure nothing’s gone wrong.”“The time line was only an estimate. Our research strongly suggests indoctrination and repurposingvaries greatly depending on the strength of the subject.”“He’s resisting,” the Illusive Man said appreciatively. “Fighting the Reapers.”“I’m amazed he’s held out this long,” Dr. Nuri admitted. “His focus and determination are far beyondanything I expected. I underestimated him in my initial calculations.”“People always underestimated him,” the Illusive Man replied. “That’s what made him such a good
(Page 55). 

agent.”“We could try to artificially accelerate the process,” Nuri offered. “But it would skew the results. Andit might send his body into shock again.”“It’s too much of a risk.”“Dust him up,” Kai Leng suggested, stepping forward to join the conversation. “We still have the redsand we grabbed on Omega.”“It could work,” Dr. Nuri said after a few moments of consideration. “Our testing shows narcoticshave no impact on the Reaper biotechnology. And it could weaken his focus. Make him more susceptibleto the indoctrination.”“Do it,” the Illusive Man ordered.
(Page 56). 
3. Only the late stage can't be shaken of...It can be resisted for a shor time.

[balance5050]

 

[hoodaticus]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

Why would Shepard be the only person in the history of the game capable of shaking off Reaper influence?

Why do all 3 endings inform you, the player, directly from the gamemakers, that Shepard became a legend by ending the threat of the Reapers, breaking the fourth wall to do so, if in 2 endings you failed?

Why do the endings have ANY differences, let alone fairly important ones (Citadel not blowing up, relays not exploding) if it's all a dream?

In fact, why do synthesis and control Shepard have a dream about winning if they just lost forever? What's the point of that?

DOn't expect an answer, if it's too hard they will simply forget you ever asked.

We're mainly just annoyed because the very people in this conversation now have already asked and answered this elsewhere in the last few days.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Because I don't stand with you doesn't mean I don't stand for nothing. But what I stand for, is irrelevant to whether IT has any merit or not.

So if you aren't trying to prove anything what are you doing? collecting cancer causing bad vibes?

How does this support IT?

[dreman9999]

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
If the Catalyst controls the Citadel, why did it need Shep and why did it allow Shep to open the arms?

That's a point towards IT.

No it's not. It's a point that the Catalyst doesn't fully control the Citadel...

1. Two theories of IT  Has him not being real.
2.One theory has him being power less and just trying to get Shepard to let him use the crucible.

...
What you said is a point towards IT.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

jules_vern18 wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

You don't need falsifiability unless you are about to conduct an experiment. This is interpretation of facts - not gathering of new ones.

You need falsifiability in order for any theory to be tested and as a basis for any assertions in a logical argument.

There is a way to test IT - it comes from the words of the people who wrote the story, and will come in the implemenation of the extended cut.

Not necessarily.  I think that even if the EC comes out and invalidates IT, the cultists will continue insisting that it's true and that the final proof is still coming.  I don't think that a single condition exists under which believers in IT could accept that their "theory" is disproved...

...and therefore it's not a logical theory.  It's a belief.

Opinions tis a wonderous sight.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Because I don't stand with you doesn't mean I don't stand for nothing. But what I stand for, is irrelevant to whether IT has any merit or not.

So if you aren't trying to prove anything what are you doing? collecting cancer causing bad vibes?

How does this support IT?

The more haters the better. - Katt Williams

[dreman9999]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Because I don't stand with you doesn't mean I don't stand for nothing. But what I stand for, is irrelevant to whether IT has any merit or not.

So if you aren't trying to prove anything what are you doing? collecting cancer causing bad vibes?

How does this support IT?

1. Two theories of IT  has him not being real.
2.One theory has him being powerless and just trying to get Shepard to let him use the crucible as he sees fit.

...
What you said is a point towards IT. 

[CavScout]

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
If the Catalyst controls the Citadel, why did it need Shep and why did it allow Shep to open the arms?

That's a point towards IT.

No it's not. It's a point that the Catalyst doesn't fully control the Citadel...

1. Two theories of IT  Has him not being real.
2.One theory has him being power less and just trying to get Shepard to let him use the crucible.

...
What you said is a point towards IT.

You're presuming Indoctrination as the only answer... you are trapped in a logical fallacy.

[Sisterofshane]

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...So you think TIM is indocrinating Shep and Anderson?

PS: Game files don't really prove anything... they're file names.

1. Yes.
2. Yes they do. The devs use it to make clear what does what in away every dev on the tema can understate from the code team, image team to sound team.

If game files are the end all, be all, where are the files that prove Indocrination Theory?

Probably the ones that named the foliage textures where Normandy crash-landed in the ending "Dream_Foliage".

Only if you presume that files were not reused in the game, i.e. foliage from the deam sequences was retextured and used in the ending scene.

Matching the foliage from that file to that scen makes it a match. It's all the same

It then means the file name is less relevant than you've been claiming.

Finding file names within the game is where IT gets silly.  Unlike CavScout, however, I will give you the reasons why I believe it is silly.

First, we are assuming the Dev's intended to place pieces of evidence to support IT in places that most averae gamers (such as myself) would not be able to find.

Second, we assume that the usage of the same foliage automatically means that we are meant to believe that the ending sequence was one and the same as the other dream sequences within the game.  Well guess what people?  Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.  The reusage of assets does not make causality.  It could simply be that Bioware didn't have the resources to design and implement a completly new set of foliage for one scene.

[Hadeedak]

Iconoclaste wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...
Shepard never even knew what the Crucible was capable of, no one in the Alliance ever did, in fact. So, there was no use for the Reapers to suggest the "destroy" ending, and if they really expected him to die in any way, the could have easily calculated the risk, and simply let Shepard die instead of showing him something he didn't even knew was possible in the first place! And if they intended to kill him, then Harbinger could have done it easily, instead of missing him on purpose, just to have to do it later.

This is even more tortuous than the actual endings, in my opinion.

ME2 keep Shepard alive,

keep it up, you may eventually come full circle.

Not a valid explanation.

At some point in there, the Catalyst becomes Vizzini.


At least, that's what I keep being reminded of.

To add to my long list of questions -- why is destroy the only ending in which the Catalyst DOESN'T tell Shepard he/she will die? The strongest wording is 'You yourself are partially synthetic'. 

[jules_vern18]

hoodaticus wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

You don't need falsifiability unless you are about to conduct an experiment. This is interpretation of facts - not gathering of new ones.

You need falsifiability in order for any theory to be tested and as a basis for any assertions in a logical argument.

There is a way to test IT - it comes from the words of the people who wrote the story, and will come in the implemenation of the extended cut.

Not necessarily.  I think that even if the EC comes out and invalidates IT, the cultists will continue insisting that it's true and that the final proof is still coming.  I don't think that a single condition exists under which believers in IT could accept that their "theory" is disproved...

...and therefore it's not a logical theory.  It's a belief.

You are seriously confused.  Falsifiability is for scientific endeavors - it is not a sine qua non of logic itself.  It has no place in art or literary interpretation.  It is completely unamenable to "totality of the circumstances" analysis, which is based on the relative plausibility of claims being made in light of all the facts.

IT is not structured as literary interpretation; it is structured as a hypothesis supported by enumerated "facts." 

And no, falsifiability/refutability is not restricted to science...it is also used as a test for assertions of fact in logical arguments. 

And IT can absolutely be tested - I think an appropriate test would be the content of the EC.  But if believers in IT don't see that as an adequate test, then I would like to know what is.

If you are presenting a theory and are unwilling or unable to set parameters for refutability, then it is not a "theory" in a strictly logical sense... It's more like an argument between an athiest and a devout Christian about the existance of God.

[dreman9999]

Iconoclaste wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...
Shepard never even knew what the Crucible was capable of, no one in the Alliance ever did, in fact. So, there was no use for the Reapers to suggest the "destroy" ending, and if they really expected him to die in any way, the could have easily calculated the risk, and simply let Shepard die instead of showing him something he didn't even knew was possible in the first place! And if they intended to kill him, then Harbinger could have done it easily, instead of missing him on purpose, just to have to do it later.

This is even more tortuous than the actual endings, in my opinion.

ME2 keep Shepard alive,

keep it up, you may eventually come full circle.

Not a valid explanation.

Yes it is. Harbinger never kills Shepard for some reason....Andreapers can sense organics.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Because I don't stand with you doesn't mean I don't stand for nothing. But what I stand for, is irrelevant to whether IT has any merit or not.

So if you aren't trying to prove anything what are you doing? collecting cancer causing bad vibes?

How does this support IT?

Because of this link between the dreams, the geth consensus, and the final indoc attempt.


http://desmond.image...pg&res=landing 
 
 

Modifié par balance5050, 13 mai 2012 - 07:31 .

[CavScout]

Sisterofshane wrote...
Finding file names within the game is where IT gets silly.  Unlike CavScout, however, I will give you the reasons why I believe it is silly.

First, we are assuming the Dev's intended to place pieces of evidence to support IT in places that most averae gamers (such as myself) would not be able to find.

Second, we assume that the usage of the same foliage automatically means that we are meant to believe that the ending sequence was one and the same as the other dream sequences within the game.  Well guess what people?  Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.  The reusage of assets does not make causality.  It could simply be that Bioware didn't have the resources to design and implement a completly new set of foliage for one scene.

Here you go Skippy.