55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Rifneno]

Big Bad wrote...

If all the knives banded together to remove all of the lasagna from the universe, you're damn right I would try to destroy them all.

Garfield?  You're much more... geth primey than I remember.

[estebanus]

And I'm back from fighting with Anti-ITers!

Anything new?

[byne]

paxxton wrote...

byne wrote...
And your last point? Changing the Reapers for the better? You're like a step away from saying you want to teach the Reapers to love. They are an abomination. Purge them from the galaxy. Nothing of value will have been lost. Not even technical upgrades we could have gotten from them. We got Thanix cannons from studying the corpse of Sovereign, we can study the corpse of every Reaper in existence once they're all dead.

This is anologous to saying that because knives can be used to kill you should destroy all the knives in the universe. And then no pizza can be cut into pieces.

No, using godchild logic its like saying that knives can be used to cut pizza, and to stop this from ever happening, we should just rip pizza apart with our bare hands before any horrible knives can cut them.

[paxxton]

byne wrote...

paxxton wrote...

byne wrote...

I dont understand the point you're trying to make by asking what life is. Destroy destroys synthetics, not organics. If you are trying to make a point with that and I missed it, please clarify.

Sufficiently advanced technology must be considered as synthetic life. But what does it mean "sufficiently advanced"? Today's computers would seem sentient for 19th Century people.

So you're saying the Crucible will just randomly decide all technology is in fact synthetic life and destroy it?

That doesnt even make any sense.

This is the disclaimer I mentioned:
Of course this would be that only if IT was wrong.

On the other hand, there might be some means to do that.

[MegumiAzusa]

byne wrote...

paxxton wrote...

byne wrote...
And your last point? Changing the Reapers for the better? You're like a step away from saying you want to teach the Reapers to love. They are an abomination. Purge them from the galaxy. Nothing of value will have been lost. Not even technical upgrades we could have gotten from them. We got Thanix cannons from studying the corpse of Sovereign, we can study the corpse of every Reaper in existence once they're all dead.

This is anologous to saying that because knives can be used to kill you should destroy all the knives in the universe. And then no pizza can be cut into pieces.

No, using godchild logic its like saying that knives can be used to cut pizza, and to stop this from ever happening, we should just rip pizza apart with our bare hands before any horrible knives can cut them.

I don't have any problem with that if I get to eat at least some of these pizzas.

Modifié par MegumiAzusa, 18 mai 2012 - 10:32 .

[byne]

paxxton wrote...

byne wrote...

paxxton wrote...

byne wrote...

I dont understand the point you're trying to make by asking what life is. Destroy destroys synthetics, not organics. If you are trying to make a point with that and I missed it, please clarify.

Sufficiently advanced technology must be considered as synthetic life. But what does it mean "sufficiently advanced"? Today's computers would seem sentient for 19th Century people.

So you're saying the Crucible will just randomly decide all technology is in fact synthetic life and destroy it?

That doesnt even make any sense.

This is the disclaimer I mentioned:
Of course this would be that only if IT was wrong.

On the other hand, there might be some means to do that.

Right, I understand your disclaimer. Only if IT is wrong. In other words if the literal endings are correct. Thats what I'm talking about. The literal endings.

[HellishFiend]

paxxton wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Their user is the current Catalyst just like a human is a user of a knife.

No, sorry, but that is just all kinds of wrong. To even reach that argument you'd have to believe and accept the conclusion of starbrat's logic, meaning the very foundation of your sentence is like a matchstick bridge with no glue. 

The point is that the Reapers must do what the Catalyst commands them to do.

This is the last post I'm going to make on this subject because it is getting too off topic.

At the risk of sounding rude, I think you're having a fundamental problem with logic here. Logic is a process upon which a conclusion is formed through an argument, using a set of premises. If youre trying to build a factual conclusion and not just a supposition, then in order for the logic to be sound, the premises must be facts. 

Take the following sound logic for example:

Dogs are mammals.
Ralph is a dog. 
Therefore, Ralph is a mammal. 

The two premises are confirmed facts, so the conclusion can also be accepted as fact. What if we say this?

Dogs are amphibians.
Ralph is a Dog.
Therefore, Ralph is an amphibian.

The logic is sound, but one of the premises is false. False logic. 

Do you follow me so far? Now, on to how this applies to the topic at hand. 

The catalyst controls the reapers.
The goal of the mass effect storyline is to stop the reaper threat.
Therefore, supplanting the catalyst will satisfy the goal of the mass effect storyline.

The logic is sound, but one of the premises is NOT A CONFIRMED FACT. False logic. End of story, not up for debate. 

Again, thats all, because one of the reasons I have been having trouble keeping up with this thread is because of all the off-topic banter and quote pyramids, and I dont want to contribute to that any further. Not to mention it was also cited as the reason the last topic got shut down. 

[Big Bad]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

byne wrote...

paxxton wrote...

byne wrote...
And your last point? Changing the Reapers for the better? You're like a step away from saying you want to teach the Reapers to love. They are an abomination. Purge them from the galaxy. Nothing of value will have been lost. Not even technical upgrades we could have gotten from them. We got Thanix cannons from studying the corpse of Sovereign, we can study the corpse of every Reaper in existence once they're all dead.

This is anologous to saying that because knives can be used to kill you should destroy all the knives in the universe. And then no pizza can be cut into pieces.

No, using godchild logic its like saying that knives can be used to cut pizza, and to stop this from ever happening, we should just rip pizza apart with our bare hands before any horrible knives can cut them.

I don't have any problem with that if I get to eat at least some of these pizzas.

But you might burn your fingers...oh no! We need to cut off our fingers before they get burnt!!

[DJBare]

One thing of interest to note, some I.T believers cannot seem to shake the idea that everything in the delusion has no effect on the real world, therefore the three choices, control, synthesis, destroy have only meaning to Shepard.
Control, a fools errand, Shepard might be strong, but s/he would be attempting to force his/her will upon millions of minds.
Synthesis, Shepard has succumbed to indoctrination, his/her mind now belongs to the reapers.
Destroy, Shepard has beaten indoctrination.
I'll say it again, in my opinion Shepard never made it to the citadel, everything after London is taking place inside Shepard's mind while s/he lies unconscious under a pile of rubble.

[byne]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

byne wrote...

paxxton wrote...

byne wrote...
And your last point? Changing the Reapers for the better? You're like a step away from saying you want to teach the Reapers to love. They are an abomination. Purge them from the galaxy. Nothing of value will have been lost. Not even technical upgrades we could have gotten from them. We got Thanix cannons from studying the corpse of Sovereign, we can study the corpse of every Reaper in existence once they're all dead.

This is anologous to saying that because knives can be used to kill you should destroy all the knives in the universe. And then no pizza can be cut into pieces.

No, using godchild logic its like saying that knives can be used to cut pizza, and to stop this from ever happening, we should just rip pizza apart with our bare hands before any horrible knives can cut them.

I don't have any problem with that if I get to eat at least some of these pizzas.

No, you dont get to eat the pizza, we have to preserve it by combining all the ripped apart pizzas together.

[XXIceColdXX]

Lance Henrikson said in a interview recently regarding him returning for more voice work.

"Usually, when a guy loses the game, the game shuts down; it's over. It's done. The players don't like that,"

This seems to fit with the IT theory... (really even destroy is losing at this stage, hes virtually dead lying in the rubble)

Thoughts?

Link to interview http://www.g4tv.com/...ending-content/

Modifié par XXIceColdXX, 18 mai 2012 - 10:42 .

[MegumiAzusa]

Big Bad wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

byne wrote...

paxxton wrote...

byne wrote...
And your last point? Changing the Reapers for the better? You're like a step away from saying you want to teach the Reapers to love. They are an abomination. Purge them from the galaxy. Nothing of value will have been lost. Not even technical upgrades we could have gotten from them. We got Thanix cannons from studying the corpse of Sovereign, we can study the corpse of every Reaper in existence once they're all dead.

This is anologous to saying that because knives can be used to kill you should destroy all the knives in the universe. And then no pizza can be cut into pieces.

No, using godchild logic its like saying that knives can be used to cut pizza, and to stop this from ever happening, we should just rip pizza apart with our bare hands before any horrible knives can cut them.

I don't have any problem with that if I get to eat at least some of these pizzas.

But you might burn your fingers...oh no! We need to cut off our fingers before they get burnt!!

Nah, I'm Dragonborn, nothing will happen

[HellishFiend]

XXIceColdXX wrote...

Lance Henrikson said in a interview recently

"Usually, when a guy loses the game, the game shuts down; it's over. It's done. The players don't like that,"

This seems to fit with the IT theory...

Thoughts?

I doubt it. I think he was just drawing a comparison between mass effect 3's ending to how a game ends when you lose and get a game over, and using it as justification for the fan outrage. 

[RavenEyry]

DJBare wrote...

One thing of interest to note, some I.T believers cannot seem to shake the idea that everything in the delusion has no effect on the real world, therefore the three choices, control, synthesis, destroy have only meaning to Shepard.
Control, a fools errand, Shepard might be strong, but s/he would be attempting to force his/her will upon millions of minds.
Synthesis, Shepard has succumbed to indoctrination, his/her mind now belongs to the reapers.
Destroy, Shepard has beaten indoctrination.
I'll say it again, in my opinion Shepard never made it to the citadel, everything after London is taking place inside Shepard's mind while s/he lies unconscious under a pile of rubble.

That's what most of us think too. The discussion somehow got dragged to the topic of face-value choices.

[spotlessvoid]

spotlessvoid wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

paxxton accidentally brought up a good point. If Starchild really does control the Reapers, then doesn't the fact that he didn't just make them stop instead of forcing Shepard to either sacrifice his life in control, or set the galaxy back in destroy show his inherent untrustworthiness?

No, it's bound by programming to continue, even if it would say the truth.

Starchild is just a shackled AI?
When was it determined that Starchild was bound by programming and not acting of it's own will?

If so then the response to the crucibles creation and the ensuing 3 options presented would have been programmed in by Starchilds creators. Why would his creators know about the crucible ahead of time and also still leave the citadel vulnerable?

Sorry for the self bump, but I wanted to add something:

Why would starchilds programmers have it throw away it's millions of years old agenda because one little organic threatened it by getting too close? And is Shepard really the first organic to pull that off? Really? Killing him and resetting the cycle just can't work?
If starchild is bound (shackled) by it's programming, and it's telling the truth, then it's original creators couldn't have felt that the cycles was the only possible solution to the organic vs synthetic problem or they wouldn't have programmed it to offer the 3 choices (if they are legit choices)

And don't say the catalyst changed starchild, so that's why his programming changed to offer the choices. No way those options were built within the short period of time between the crucible docking and Shepards confrontation with him.

Regardless of whether starchild is a shackled AI or self determining, why would those 3 options be already there ahead of time?

[byne]

DJBare wrote...

One thing of interest to note, some I.T believers cannot seem to shake the idea that everything in the delusion has no effect on the real world, therefore the three choices, control, synthesis, destroy have only meaning to Shepard.
Control, a fools errand, Shepard might be strong, but s/he would be attempting to force his/her will upon millions of minds.
Synthesis, Shepard has succumbed to indoctrination, his/her mind now belongs to the reapers.
Destroy, Shepard has beaten indoctrination.
I'll say it again, in my opinion Shepard never made it to the citadel, everything after London is taking place inside Shepard's mind while s/he lies unconscious under a pile of rubble.

If you're referring to me, I understand that everything is just in Shep's head and doesnt affect the real world. I was just discussing the endings if we interpret them literally.

[RavenEyry]

XXIceColdXX wrote...

Lance Henrikson said in a interview recently regarding him returning for more voice work.

"Usually, when a guy loses the game, the game shuts down; it's over. It's done. The players don't like that,"

This seems to fit with the IT theory...

Thoughts?

Already discussed to death as soon as the news broke. We do venture outside of this thread to the murky deluge of the board to gather supplies sometimes.

[XXIceColdXX]

RavenEyry wrote...

XXIceColdXX wrote...

Lance Henrikson said in a interview recently regarding him returning for more voice work.

"Usually, when a guy loses the game, the game shuts down; it's over. It's done. The players don't like that,"

This seems to fit with the IT theory...

Thoughts?

Already discussed to death as soon as the news broke. We do venture outside of this thread to the murky deluge of the board to gather supplies sometimes.

Sometimes i miss a few hundred pages this thread moves so fast.

What was the consensus? Evidence or not.

[spotlessvoid]

Don't see how questioning the validity of face value logic is off topic. If anything, debunking starchilds logic is arguing in favor of an interpretive view of the ending. Which is certainly part of IT. Proving face value wrong creates a void. A void which IT fills

[RavenEyry]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Why would starchilds programmers have it throw away it's millions of years old agenda because one little organic threatened it by getting too close? And is Shepard really the first organic to pull that off? Really? Killing him and resetting the cycle just can't work?

Because many reapers have been killed in this war and the fact that very little progress was made on the human-reaper using several colonies of people implying that less than a dozen new ones will be made post cycle, perhaps the catalyst was worried about conventional defeat? I don't necessarilly mean in this cycle but overall perhaps the reaper numbers have been in decline. Perhaps Mr. Sparkle had been considering changing the solution (for several cycles, I assume he has long term thinking due to the 50000 year thing) and Shepard being there provided the opportunity for it.

[RavenEyry]

XXIceColdXX wrote...

Sometimes i miss a few hundred pages this thread moves so fast.

What was the consensus? Evidence or not.

Everyone formed their own opinion then put it on the back burner. No general "OMG that clinches it" from anyone I'm afraid.

spotlessvoid wrote...

Don't see how questioning the
validity of face value logic is off topic. If anything, debunking
starchilds logic is arguing in favor of an interpretive view of the
ending. Which is certainly part of IT. Proving face value wrong creates a
void. A void which IT fills

"Why do you believe this?" "...There was a hole."

Modifié par RavenEyry, 18 mai 2012 - 10:49 .

[DJBare]

byne wrote...

DJBare wrote...

One thing of interest to note, some I.T believers cannot seem to shake the idea that everything in the delusion has no effect on the real world, therefore the three choices, control, synthesis, destroy have only meaning to Shepard.
Control, a fools errand, Shepard might be strong, but s/he would be attempting to force his/her will upon millions of minds.
Synthesis, Shepard has succumbed to indoctrination, his/her mind now belongs to the reapers.
Destroy, Shepard has beaten indoctrination.
I'll say it again, in my opinion Shepard never made it to the citadel, everything after London is taking place inside Shepard's mind while s/he lies unconscious under a pile of rubble.

If you're referring to me, I understand that everything is just in Shep's head and doesnt affect the real world. I was just discussing the endings if we interpret them literally.

No, not referring to any particular poster, I find it interesting because I have to remind myself also sometimes, I accept I.T yet sometimes I find myself thinking of the choices as real, mentally it's difficult to shake, which if I.T is real, then the writers and developers did a damn good job.

[HellishFiend]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Don't see how questioning the validity of face value logic is off topic. If anything, debunking starchilds logic is arguing in favor of an interpretive view of the ending. Which is certainly part of IT. Proving face value wrong creates a void. A void which IT fills

Anyone with a firm grasp of logic can plainly see that starchild's logic is false. Debating whether it is valid or invalid is literally akin to arguing over the answer of a simple algebraic equation. 

I'd like to see someone read a logic textbook, or hell, even the wiki article on logic, and then try to come back here and argue for starbrats logic. 

It's already come up at least 5 times since I've been following this topic, and I've done my best to explain each time, but it keeps coming up and making it harder to keep up with the actual relevant info that we find. 

Modifié par HellishFiend, 18 mai 2012 - 10:49 .

[byne]

HellishFiend wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Don't see how questioning the validity of face value logic is off topic. If anything, debunking starchilds logic is arguing in favor of an interpretive view of the ending. Which is certainly part of IT. Proving face value wrong creates a void. A void which IT fills

Anyone with a firm grasp of logic can plainly see that starchild's logic is false. Debating whether it is valid or invalid is literally akin to arguing over the answer of a simple algebraic equation. 

I'd like to see someone read a logic textbook, or hell, even the wiki article on logic, and then try to come back here and argue for starbrats logic. 

It's already come up at least 5 times since I've been following this topic, and I've done my best to explain each time, but it keeps comign up and making it harder to keep up with the actual relevant info that we find. 

The best defense of godchild's logic I've seen was 'His logic is not something we can understand. It makes sense to him'

And when that is the best defense of it I've seen it should tell you how weak all the other defenses are

[HellishFiend]

byne wrote...


The best defense of godchild's logic I've seen was 'His logic is not something we can understand. It makes sense to him'

And when that is the best defense of it I've seen it should tell you how weak all the other defenses are

Exactly.