9089 réponses à ce sujet

[SpectreVeldt]

saracen16 wrote...
All it does is alter the matrix of life and improves upon it.

Just going to interject here...  Now you have to break down your own statement and explain how it "alter[s] the matrix of life."  Analyze what the definition of life was before Synthesis, and what it is afterward.  Name what has been improved (can be subjective, of course), and then break down those statements.  Could any of those statements been a positive thing in any way?  You (and many others) have mentioned what we gained through Synthesis.  If you want to present a wholly unbiased and analytical argument, examine what we have lost through Synthesis.  I'm going to just quote myself here from an above post:

SpectreVeldt wrote...
The next step, then, is to fully understand and analyze the Synthesis End, and ask questions like: What do we gain from a lack of understanding?  One Example.  ME3 Example.  Etc.

 

lillitheris wrote...
That’s the wrong question, as I keep pointing out. The ends are unknown — unknowable as argued by Ieldra2 — and cannot therefore be used as unquestionable justification.

I’d like to see proponents answer my question from above.

There is no "wrong" question.  There are many, MANY questions.  If you don't fully analyze and break down Synthesis, then you are willfully keeping yourself ignorant.  I did not mention how "the ends are unknown."  I merely remarked that both sides need to look more closely (at all potential implications of Synthesis).  I, myself, did not even state if these "ends justified the means"; I just recognized that this is what everyone is trying answer without attempting a more empirical process.  I hate the Synthesis Ending for many reasons, but you are already inserting arguments for me (in favor of Synthesis) when I don't even mention them.

[Lazengan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Lazengan wrote...
choosing synthesis closes off all other paths, which is an affront to everything evolution stands for

Affront? LOL....sorry, but I don't get you. Evolution is a natural, value-neutral process of life.

Evolution is about choices, free will, mistakes, chaos and the order that rises from the solved conflicts. Evolution is not teological as the catalyst believes, but has an infinite amount of pathways to follow.

Choices and free will have nothing to with it. Solved conflicts have nothing to do with it. Evolution is a way for life to adapt to changing environments. What you are speaking of is *advancement*, most notably social and technological advancement. Synthesis is exactly about that, not about stagnation.

Biochemistry is.....just biochemisty. There is nothing particularly sacred or even less "spiritual" in it. DNA encodes proteins, proteins create the other stuff you're made from. For instace, if your DNA was suddenly replaced by a functionally identical different substance, it wouldn't make you one bit less "you". 

technological advancement stems from  a meta example of evolution as a species. Choosing synthesis brings a bout a form of advancement that is unnatural and has not been discovered through conventional means. We aren't ready for it or don't deserve it at all because it was not ours by design. It is not a natrual form of culural or biological evolution

[saracen16]

Lazengan wrote...

we are following the path that the catalyst intended
he guides our meta experiences through a predestined path of bio-synthetic evolution. What free will we have is just an illusion to what the catalyst is trying to achieve, in creating the perfect being

Free will and choice are more advanced on the evolutionary tree and that's what separates us from animals. To change the fundamental building blocks of life, all the while retaining the best of both organic and synthetic, does not change that, even in spite of the Catalyst's agenda being so, which is to bring peace to organics and synthetics at any cost.

You seem to base these assumptions on similar conclusions in other video games, such as Deus Ex Invisible War's Helios ending, where a single nexus of information unites everyone in ability and functionality, even though JC argues that Helios will only communicate, not assimilate. Here, there is no central link. All organics will be connected means that they will understand each other.

Modifié par saracen16, 01 juillet 2012 - 06:39 .

[JamieCOTC]

The Shepard - synthesis fanart. 

[Lazengan]

JamieCOTC wrote...

The Shepard - synthesis fanart. 

"the shepard"

*shudders*

[Welsh Inferno]

@SpectreVeldt

Sadly its nigh on impossible to ascertain what we have "lost". The endings are all presented in a "good" light. And thus that decision by BW leaves us very little on the negative impacts of any of the endings. I could speculate on some things but that's all it would be, speculation. Actually the only other legitimate negative(and negative is subjective on it really) is that it isn't the "natural" course of evolution. But again, how do we know its not? If the what Starbrat says is even remotely true then civilizations will rise and reach it sometime anyway.

JamieCOTC wrote...

The Shepard - synthesis fanart.  

 

My shep has green eyes anyway. Win :happy:

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 01 juillet 2012 - 06:47 .

[lillitheris]

SpectreVeldt wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
That’s the wrong question, as I keep pointing out. The ends are unknown — unknowable as argued by Ieldra2 — and cannot therefore be used as unquestionable justification.

I’d like to see proponents answer my question from above.

There is no "wrong" question.  There are many, MANY questions.  If you don't fully analyze and break down Synthesis, then you are willfully keeping yourself ignorant.  I did not mention how "the ends are unknown."  I merely remarked that both sides need to look more closely (at all potential implications of Synthesis).  I, myself, did not even state if these "ends justified the means"; I just recognized that this is what everyone is trying answer without attempting a more empirical process.  I hate the Synthesis Ending for many reasons, but you are already inserting arguments for me (in favor of Synthesis) when I don't even mention them.

No, there most certainly are wrong questions. The Synthesis problem has two components:

1. Is it justified to force an unknowable change on the galaxy without their permission? This is the prime moral objection.

2. Whether the change revealed is good or not? Actual dissection of Synthesis.

All eventually revealed potential implications of Synthesis are completely irrelevant for question #1, which is actually the important one. Personally I view #2 as mostly irrelevant, because it’s presented as something good.

Modifié par lillitheris, 01 juillet 2012 - 06:45 .

[jtav]

Here's an objection I'd like someone from the pro-Synth faction to answer. My Shepard managed peace between the geth and quarians. And the last few incidences of organic vs. machine seem to be caused by Reaper intervention. The Catalyst seems to imply civilization is tending toward Synthesis anyway. So is it necessary? It's a radical change, so the problem must be equally radical and otherwise unsolvable. I'm not sure the standard has been met.

[saracen16]

Lazengan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Lazengan wrote...
choosing synthesis closes off all other paths, which is an affront to everything evolution stands for

Affront? LOL....sorry, but I don't get you. Evolution is a natural, value-neutral process of life.

Evolution is about choices, free will, mistakes, chaos and the order that rises from the solved conflicts. Evolution is not teological as the catalyst believes, but has an infinite amount of pathways to follow.

Choices and free will have nothing to with it. Solved conflicts have nothing to do with it. Evolution is a way for life to adapt to changing environments. What you are speaking of is *advancement*, most notably social and technological advancement. Synthesis is exactly about that, not about stagnation.

Biochemistry is.....just biochemisty. There is nothing particularly sacred or even less "spiritual" in it. DNA encodes proteins, proteins create the other stuff you're made from. For instace, if your DNA was suddenly replaced by a functionally identical different substance, it wouldn't make you one bit less "you". 

technological advancement stems from  a meta example of evolution as a species. Choosing synthesis brings a bout a form of advancement that is unnatural and has not been discovered through conventional means. We aren't ready for it or don't deserve it at all because it was not ours by design. It is not a natrual form of culural or biological evolution

That's a very reasonable argument against synthesis, and I partially agree. The same can be said for the krogan. The salarians "uplifted" them at a time when they were warring with each other, and that was a mistake, clearly as it resulted in the krogan rebellions and the genophage, which limited krogan population growth and thus evolution. The question becomes whether undoing the genophage is necessary and whether the krogan are ready (circumstances are different depending on whether Eve is alive or dead and who among the Urdnot broodbrothers is leading the krogan). 
Also, the krogans are at odds with the salarians as a result of their evolutionary differences and the historical events that led to their sterilization. Undoing the genophage could mean that the krogan evolve on their own, and anyone who supports the genophage may support or oppose synthesis based on the grounds you adequately described: whether you place more importance on self-determination and self-evolution vs. cooperation and understanding.

However, I would contend that synthesis would be the only solution that puts everyone, even the Reapers, at an equal footing and promotes understanding, not dominance. Synthesis would bridge the gap between the krogan and salarians, and even bridge the differences of the quarian and the geth. You're right, though: it is not ours by design, and 

[Ieldra]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yeah, and only because of the sentiment "I didn't ask for this". It's incomprehensible.

That’s exactly why it’s reprehensible. The outcome doesn’t matter. Are you seriously arguing this:

Premise: you must make a choice whether to apply a change with unknown (unknowable, by your own admission) on everybody.

Outcome A: it’s somehow positive. Your decision was therefore morally right.
Outcome B: it’s somehow negative. Your decision was therefore morally wrong.

It doesn’t work like that.

I think Ieldra just sees it as an "Ends justifies the means" sorta way. I certainly recognise that morally, forcing something on everyone and thing in the galaxy is wrong. But all the endings are morally wrong, so it pretty much nullifies that consequence for me.

The "unknowable "part doesn't apply any more in the way it did before, since we now know that Synthesis gives synthetics full understanding of organics and organics the ability to fully integrate with synthetic technology. That's almost to the point what I argued before the EC came out would be the *likely* effects of Synthesis. Now they are known effects, and I can indeed argue from them.

And yes, I argue from a loosely consequentialist position. Where the stakes are as high as the future of life in the galaxy, I can no nothing else. To sacrifice the future on the altar of a principle is, from my moral perspective, evil, it's about the most self-centered choice you can make. That mostly applies to the Refuse ending, but also to all the others. Reptilian Bob has made a good thread about the morality of the endings .

[SpectreVeldt]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

@SpectreVeldt

Sadly its nigh on impossible to ascertain what we have "lost". The endings are all presented in a "good" light. And thus that decision by BW leaves us very little on the negative impacts of any of the endings. I could speculate on some things but that's all it would be, speculation. Actually the only other legitimate negative(and negative is subjective on it really) is that it isn't the "natural" course of evolution. But again, how do we know its not? If the what Starbrat says is even remotely true then civilizations will rise and reach it sometime anyway.

Perhaps to name everything, but to not even try makes debate a moot point.  That is debate; you (logically) analyze what you can with what you have.  I made an entire topic on the potential loss; awareness and education is a good thing.

On your last point, the StarChild makes two assumptions: a) Synthesis is inevitable, War between Organics and Synthetics are inevitable and they are destined to destroy each other (or, rather, Synthetics destroy Organics).  First of all, I hate assumptions.  Consider how the Mass Effect series has shown and told us that you should not act on what might happen--as Mordin learned firsthand.  In any case, one of these contradicts the other in a very rudimentary way.  And if you say that the Catalyst is bypassing a) to save all, then Synthesis can be seen as the equivalent of handing nuclear weapons to our homoerectus ancestors in order to defend against otherwordly attacks.  Consider also that our social intelligence and behavior advances at the rate of technology.  At this point, you can say: well, at least the human race still exists.  And the follow-up question: at what cost?

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The "unknowable "part doesn't apply any more in the way it did before, since we now know that Synthesis gives synthetics full understanding of organics and organics the ability to fully integrate with synthetic technology.

No, we don’t know that at the time of making the decision. That is the point.

I’ll happily stipulate that Synthesis turns out to be great (via ridiculous space magic) if you do select it. I’m merely saying that it’s reprehensible to do so.

…


You enter a room. There is a one-way mirror to a second room with 5 people (kidnapped, they did not volunteer). There is a box with a  button, and two lights, red and green.

You are given two options: either press the button, or exit the room.

If you exit the room, nothing happens. The people are free to leave. They might get run over by a car, or get cancer the next week, but they can go now.

If you press the button, there is a 80% chance that you get the green  light. This means each person is given 5 million dollars and let go.  There is a 20% chance that you get the red light. This means the people  are shot.

Is it morally just to press the button in the hopes that you hit the 80%?


That’s Synthesis.

Modifié par lillitheris, 01 juillet 2012 - 07:05 .

[saracen16]

SpectreVeldt wrote...

saracen16 wrote...
All it does is alter the matrix of life and improves upon it.

Just going to interject here...  Now you have to break down your own statement and explain how it "alter[s] the matrix of life."  Analyze what the definition of life was before Synthesis, and what it is afterward.  Name what has been improved (can be subjective, of course), and then break down those statements.  Could any of those statements been a positive thing in any way?  You (and many others) have mentioned what we gained through Synthesis.  If you want to present a wholly unbiased and analytical argument, examine what we have lost through Synthesis.  

Fair enough, and I agree wholeheartedly with you: I have to question my belief in synthesis if I am to be convinced by it. The matrix of life before synthesis is DNA for organics, and code for synthetics (binary, programming, BASIC, whatever). After EC, that framework is changed to bring the strengths of both to both sides while maintaining the weaknesses, which are addressed by what the Catalyst says: "Organics will be perfected through technology. Synthetics will be perfected through understanding."

One thing I can imagine that has been lost as a result of synthesis is what makes organics organic and what makes synthetics synthetic. The former is limited by ambition. The latter is limited by their design. Organics will always have emotions and sensibilities. Synthetics run by logic and what they were programmed with. The former lacks the logic and knowledge-acquiring capabilities of the latter, while the latter lacks the ability to see beyond their purpose, or their future, and also lacks the understanding for organic sensibilities and emotions.

Your question, "What do we gain from a lack of understanding?", is an excellent one. Socrates once said "The most important knowledge of all is the knowledge that you know nothing." There is nothing that drives the thirst for knowledge as much as ignorance (except maybe wilfull ignorance, of course). Having all this power as a synthite, all this vast amount of knowledge at one's whim, can corrupt some and drive others insane. It can also lead, as some pointed out, to a stagnation of sorts where societies cease to discover knowledge as a result of the corrupting power that is knowledge.

However, I would contend that the universe is too vast for all knowledge to be acquired, and given the countless cycles that came before, there is always the possibility of improving more, knowing more, and learning more, even spreading to all known corners of existence, to other galaxies and systems. Such a hypothetical situation that I described above would be, in my opinion, unlikely.

[saracen16]

SpectreVeldt wrote...

Welsh Inferno wrote...

@SpectreVeldt

Sadly its nigh on impossible to ascertain what we have "lost". The endings are all presented in a "good" light. And thus that decision by BW leaves us very little on the negative impacts of any of the endings. I could speculate on some things but that's all it would be, speculation. Actually the only other legitimate negative(and negative is subjective on it really) is that it isn't the "natural" course of evolution. But again, how do we know its not? If the what Starbrat says is even remotely true then civilizations will rise and reach it sometime anyway.

Perhaps to name everything, but to not even try makes debate a moot point.  That is debate; you (logically) analyze what you can with what you have.  I made an entire topic on the potential loss; awareness and education is a good thing.

On your last point, the StarChild makes two assumptions: a) Synthesis is inevitable, War between Organics and Synthetics are inevitable and they are destined to destroy each other (or, rather, Synthetics destroy Organics).  First of all, I hate assumptions.  Consider how the Mass Effect series has shown and told us that you should not act on what might happen--as Mordin learned firsthand.  In any case, one of these contradicts the other in a very rudimentary way.  And if you say that the Catalyst is bypassing a) to save all, then Synthesis can be seen as the equivalent of handing nuclear weapons to our homoerectus ancestors in order to defend against otherwordly attacks.  Consider also that our social intelligence and behavior advances at the rate of technology.  At this point, you can say: well, at least the human race still exists.  And the follow-up question: at what cost?

The Catalyst based his assumptions on what did happen: he tried to bring peace between organics and synthetics, but it always resulted in conflict.

[JamieCOTC]

jtav wrote...

Here's an objection I'd like someone from the pro-Synth faction to answer. My Shepard managed peace between the geth and quarians. And the last few incidences of organic vs. machine seem to be caused by Reaper intervention. The Catalyst seems to imply civilization is tending toward Synthesis anyway. So is it necessary? It's a radical change, so the problem must be equally radical and otherwise unsolvable. I'm not sure the standard has been met.

Good point. I don't think it's an unsolvable situation myself, but if you go w/ the story, the Catalyst does. The only thing I can come up with, and it's reaching, is that the Catalyst doesn't understand what it's like to truly be alive. He doesn't understand the beauty of chaos. He is a one dimensional program tasked w/ one problem to solve and he can't solve it therefore he goes crazy.  He is all about order because he is synthetic and all that's all he can understand.

[MisterJB]

jtav wrote...

Here's an objection I'd like someone from the pro-Synth faction to answer. My Shepard managed peace between the geth and quarians. And the last few incidences of organic vs. machine seem to be caused by Reaper intervention. The Catalyst seems to imply civilization is tending toward Synthesis anyway. So is it necessary? It's a radical change, so the problem must be equally radical and otherwise unsolvable. I'm not sure the standard has been met.

Any future process of Synthesis will, possibly, be limited to those who can afford it which would create an insurmountable rift between the rich and poor. The Crucible extends its benefits to everyone but it is through force, there is no option of refusing.

Also, I believe the way Synthesis affects the Reapers makes it desirable. It ends their enslavement while preventing their genocide and makes their knowledge avaiable to the people of the galaxy.

I understand I didn't exactly answer your question regarding the synthetic problem but I consider the two characteristics I pointed to make Synthesis desirable even beyond the possibiltiy of solving the organic-synthetic conflict.

Modifié par MisterJB, 01 juillet 2012 - 07:09 .

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
Here's an objection I'd like someone from the pro-Synth faction to answer. My Shepard managed peace between the geth and quarians. And the last few incidences of organic vs. machine seem to be caused by Reaper intervention. The Catalyst seems to imply civilization is tending toward Synthesis anyway. So is it necessary? It's a radical change, so the problem must be equally radical and otherwise unsolvable. I'm not sure the standard has been met.

As I see it, a more natural-paced path to Synthesis would be too slow to make synthetics and organics connect before organics are destroyed by synthetics.

In the geth/quarian example, suppose the geth continue to build their Matrioshka brain, far surpassing organics. How long would it take for the organic species of the galaxy to see the geth as a threat to their existence again? How long before someone thinks the quarians will go the way of the Zha'til and be enslaved. How long would it take for the geth to recognize they're so much smarter than the organics, with unpredictable results? I don't know the details of the Catalyst's reasoning since it tells us only the outline, but "we have no time to let Synthesis happen naturally" is one very plausible answer to your objection.

Also, what MisterJB said. Preserving the legacy of past cycles is very desirable. The Catalyst speaks of "civilizations preserved in their form", so it's not like a museum, but those civilizations are, in a way I'm still trying to get a grip on, still alive.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 juillet 2012 - 07:12 .

[Xilizhra]

Consider how the Mass Effect series has shown and told us that you should not act on what might happen--as Mordin learned firsthand.

No he didn't. Mordin never changed his mind about the genophage, he just decided it was better to cure it later on.

[SpectreVeldt]

lillitheris wrote...

SpectreVeldt wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
That’s the wrong question, as I keep pointing out. The ends are unknown — unknowable as argued by Ieldra2 — and cannot therefore be used as unquestionable justification.
I’d like to see proponents answer my question from above.

There is no "wrong" question.  There are many, MANY questions.  If you don't fully analyze and break down Synthesis, then you are willfully keeping yourself ignorant.  I did not mention how "the ends are unknown."  I merely remarked that both sides need to look more closely (at all potential implications of Synthesis).  I, myself, did not even state if these "ends justified the means"; I just recognized that this is what everyone is trying answer without attempting a more empirical process.  I hate the Synthesis Ending for many reasons, but you are already inserting arguments for me (in favor of Synthesis) when I don't even mention them.

No, there most certainly are wrong questions.

Name them.  And then (operationally) define "wrong" in your context.

The Synthesis problem has two components:
1. Is it justified to force an unknowable change on the galaxy without their permission? This is the prime moral objection.
2. Whether the change revealed is good or not? Actual dissection of Synthesis.

It has many more components than that, something I go into more detail in my own separate thread.  Pretending they don't exist or deeming them simply insignificant to you, personally, is not going to change this.

All eventually revealed potential implications of Synthesis are completely irrelevant...

That is ridiculous.  It is the equivalent of someone arguing against homosexuality and stating that any APA research, meta-analyses, or statistically significant results (potential implications showing evidence to the contrary), "are completely irrelevant."

...for question #1, which is actually the important one. Personally I view #2 as mostly irrelevant, because it’s presented as something good.

Subjective and fallacious.  What you personally consider significant or irrelevant can mold your argument, but it should not be stated as fact--especially without further analysis, evidence, or explanation detailing...wait for it...your potential implications.  Opinions treated as fact or true assumptions have no place in analytical debate.  You buttress opinions in a logical manner.  Stating what you personally deem important are the only factors that should matter (even when there are a multitude of others), and that the scientific process is "irrelevant" is not only fallacious, but just makes you seem rather puerile.

[SpectreVeldt]

Xilizhra wrote...

Consider how the Mass Effect series has shown and told us that you should not act on what might happen--as Mordin learned firsthand.

No he didn't. Mordin never changed his mind about the genophage, he just decided it was better to cure it later on.

When did I mention that Mordin changed his mind about the genophage?  I was specifically stating that the ME series encourages us (through Mordin) that acting on assumptions is flawed.  And this...Mordin specifically realizes and states.  "Too many variables."  Stop utilizing the strawman fallacy and making up my own arguments or points.

[SpectreVeldt]

saracen16 wrote...

The Catalyst based his assumptions on what did happen: he tried to bring peace between organics and synthetics, but it always resulted in conflict.

Organics/other organics has always resulted in conflict as well, though that is really besides the point.  You state the obvious.  I was simply questioning the methodology of the Catalyst and made it a point to mention, "...that our social intelligence and behavior advances at the rate of technology," and focus on the potential implications of the follow-up question.

Fair enough, and I agree wholeheartedly with you: I have to question my belief in synthesis if I am to be convinced by it. The matrix of life before synthesis is DNA for organics, and code for synthetics (binary, programming, BASIC, whatever). After EC, that framework is changed to bring the strengths of both to both sides while maintaining the weaknesses, which are addressed by what the Catalyst says: "Organics will be perfected through technology. Synthetics will be perfected through understanding."

One thing I can imagine that has been lost as a result of synthesis is what makes organics organic and what makes synthetics synthetic. The former is limited by ambition. The latter is limited by their design. Organics will always have emotions and sensibilities. Synthetics run by logic and what they were programmed with. The former lacks the logic and knowledge-acquiring capabilities of the latter, while the latter lacks the ability to see beyond their purpose, or their future, and also lacks the understanding for organic sensibilities and emotions.

Your question, "What do we gain from a lack of understanding?", is an excellent one. Socrates once said "The most important knowledge of all is the knowledge that you know nothing." There is nothing that drives the thirst for knowledge as much as ignorance (except maybe wilfull ignorance, of course). Having all this power as a synthite, all this vast amount of knowledge at one's whim, can corrupt some and drive others insane. It can also lead, as some pointed out, to a stagnation of sorts where societies cease to discover knowledge as a result of the corrupting power that is knowledge.

However, I would contend that the universe is too vast for all knowledge to be acquired, and given the countless cycles that came before, there is always the possibility of improving more, knowing more, and learning more, even spreading to all known corners of existence, to other galaxies and systems. Such a hypothetical situation that I described above would be, in my opinion, unlikely.

I would certainly hope that more knowledge is to be acquired, even following the Synthesis solution.  I have my own opinions and personal views, of course, but I know how silly it is to state them as fact.  You can only support and/or educate an opinion.  I think my main goal has been to simply get more people to break down the Synthesis solution.  Not everyone, of course, but it can be frustrating to see such fallacious arguments repeated--even (and perhaps especially) if those arguments are trying to support a personal viewpoint with which you agree.  I feel like I'm watching my sister play Mass Effect, spending hours watching her skip every line of dialogue and cut scenes to get back to the gameplay, and then, out of frustration, taking away her controller and yelling, "No!  THIS is how you do it, gorrammit!"

EDIT:  God.  Okay, I think I've responded to everyone now lol.

Modifié par SpectreVeldt, 01 juillet 2012 - 07:45 .

[saracen16]

SpectreVeldt wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

The Catalyst based his assumptions on what did happen: he tried to bring peace between organics and synthetics, but it always resulted in conflict.

Organics/other organics has always resulted in conflict as well, though that is really besides the point.  You state the obvious.  I was simply questioning the methodology of the Catalyst and made it a point to mention, "...that our social intelligence and behavior advances at the rate of technology," and focus on the potential implications of the follow-up question.

The follow-up question being whether we are ready to embrace new technology? That's a question I personally struggled with myself as well. It hearkens to the Sarif ending for Deus Ex HR, which is basically manipulating the news such that regulation on technology will go unbridled, and that some people will be left behind. The difference between that and synthesis is that everyone embraces this new change and no one is left behind. Whether we are ready for it evolutionarily speaking is a major unknown, but it is also assumed that this new level of understanding would compensate for our social intelligence and behavior, and whether we are capable as synthites to face such a rapid change of pace.

I would certainly hope that more knowledge is to be acquired, even following the Synthesis solution.  I have my own opinions and personal views, of course, but I know how silly it is to state them as fact.  You can only support and/or educate an opinion.  I think my main goal has been to simply get more people to break down the Synthesis solution.  Not everyone, of course, but it can be frustrating to see such fallacious arguments repeated--even (and perhaps especially) if those arguments are trying to support a personal viewpoint with which you agree.  I feel like I'm watching my sister play Mass Effect, spending hours watching her skip every line of dialogue and cut scenes to get back to the gameplay, and then, out of frustration, taking away her controller and yelling, "No!  THIS is how you do it, gorrammit!"

LOL. It's good to see that you are facilitating more discussion about it, and I applaud you for it.

[SpectreVeldt]

saracen16 wrote...
The follow-up question being whether we are ready to embrace new technology? That's a question I personally struggled with myself as well. It hearkens to the Sarif ending for Deus Ex HR, which is basically manipulating the news such that regulation on technology will go unbridled, and that some people will be left behind. The difference between that and synthesis is that everyone embraces this new change and no one is left behind. Whether we are ready for it evolutionarily speaking is a major unknown, but it is also assumed that this new level of understanding would compensate for our social intelligence and behavior, and whether we are capable as synthites to face such a rapid change of pace.

More (and this is a rather simplistic way of stating it): "at what cost?"  Just basically, more questions like the one I posed earlier (what can we gain from a lack of understanding?).  Though, again, I still want to note that there is a difference between a sentient being merging with technology and a sentient being merging with another sentient being.

LOL. It's good to see that you are facilitating more discussion about it, and I applaud you for it.

Hah yeah.  Kind of...difficult on the Internet, I know.  I appreciate the recognition at least, and just hope that others (both sides) try, at least.

[The Heretic of Time]

Xilizhra wrote...

Consider how the Mass Effect series has shown and told us that you should not act on what might happen--as Mordin learned firsthand.

No he didn't. Mordin never changed his mind about the genophage, he just decided it was better to cure it later on.

Mordin never changed his mind, he just decided to change his mind later on. That's basically what you're saying. Herrrrrrrderp.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 01 juillet 2012 - 08:55 .

[lillitheris]

SpectreVeldt wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

SpectreVeldt wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
That’s the wrong question, as I keep pointing out. The ends are unknown — unknowable as argued by Ieldra2 — and cannot therefore be used as unquestionable justification.
I’d like to see proponents answer my question from above.

There is no "wrong" question.  There are many, MANY questions.  If you don't fully analyze and break down Synthesis, then you are willfully keeping yourself ignorant.  I did not mention how "the ends are unknown."  I merely remarked that both sides need to look more closely (at all potential implications of Synthesis).  I, myself, did not even state if these "ends justified the means"; I just recognized that this is what everyone is trying answer without attempting a more empirical process.  I hate the Synthesis Ending for many reasons, but you are already inserting arguments for me (in favor of Synthesis) when I don't even mention them.

No, there most certainly are wrong questions.

Name them.  And then (operationally) define "wrong" in your context.

Ooh, a challenge. I already defined the correct questions.

The Synthesis problem has two components:
1. Is it justified to force an unknowable change on the galaxy without their permission? This is the prime moral objection.
2. Whether the change revealed is good or not? Actual dissection of Synthesis.

It has many more components than that, something I go into more detail in my own separate thread.  Pretending they don't exist or deeming them simply insignificant to you, personally, is not going to change this.

These are exactly the two components under debate. There are some incidentals, but generally everything else are subcomponents of #2.

I’d very much like to hear your answer to my actual analogy a couple posts above. It illustrates the division.

If you have an example of a relevant question that does not fall in these two categories, I’d be glad to hear it. I really have no interest in reading your thread, too, especially given the logic you’re displaying below, for example…

All eventually revealed potential implications of Synthesis are completely irrelevant...

That is ridiculous.  It is the equivalent of someone arguing against homosexuality and stating that any APA research, meta-analyses, or statistically significant results (potential implications showing evidence to the contrary), "are completely irrelevant."

Your ‘equivalence’ isn’t, and is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

I can’t say this any clearer: the outcome of a decision is irrelevant when trying to assess the morality of the decision. It’s only dependent on factors known at the time of the decision. By definition, the outcome is not known at the time.

There is no research. There is no analysis. There is no meta-analysis. There are no results. There are no statistically significant results. It is all completely unknown at the time of making the decision.

...for question #1, which is actually the important one. Personally I view #2 as mostly irrelevant, because it’s presented as something good.

Subjective and fallacious.  What you personally consider significant or irrelevant can mold your argument, but it should not be stated as fact--especially [blah blah blah]

As I said, I find the actual effects of Spacemagicthesis irrelevant, and I’m not terribly interested in discussing those. It’s all nonsense, anyway, so whatever’s your headcanon is fine.

Edit: just to be clear, it’s all well and good if you want to discuss that part. Be my guest. I don’t.

I’m only interested in the decision, because pro-Synthesis keeps avoiding answering questions about it.

Modifié par lillitheris, 01 juillet 2012 - 08:55 .