9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Vigilant111]

Enthalpy wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Enthalpy wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Enthalpy wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

There is nothing elitist about Shepard making that decision. He is in a position that demands he decided the fate of the galaxy.

I think being elitist is stemming from the opinion that synthetics are indeed superior in term of fire power and efficiency

No, Shepard is not in postion to DECIDE the fate of the galaxy, but merely influence it in a certain way

If we consider the Reapers and the fully-powered geth dreadnought as examples of synthetic firepower and efficiency, then I think we can conclude that they are indeed superior to organic spaceships. Doesn't mean synthetics are superior to organics in every single way, though. We have yet to see geth art.

Yes, they are indeed superior yet we killed one of them throughout the game, and it only takes one, they are superior yes, but they are not invincible, well, not in ME anyway

It has never been stated that they were invincible. I don't see where your point lies with that statement.

That synthetics have weaknesses just like us, so no need for synthesis? U need synthesis cos they are superior right? Why do u need synthesis to upgrade fire power and efficiency? aren't computers already doing that for u?

Synthesis was never about firepower or efficiency; in case you haven't read the OP, please do read it. Synthesis isn't even about who's "superior," in whatever arbitrary scale we choose. It is about eliminating the basis of the Reapers' need to continue the cycles.

Yes I get it, a mutually beneficial exchange of quality of some sorts, but does it have to be done in this way?

May I ask you what that basis is? Why was the Catalyst so concerned about that basis?

In the Catalyst's POV, firepower or efficiency are required for survival, absolutely essential but this is a very primitive idea "the fittest survive"

Do u really think by jumping into the beam then your fate about organic / synthetic affairs are all sealed? Synthesis does not assure everything organic / synthetic, new organics will rise and so would new synthetics

[Vigilant111]

saracen16 wrote...

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.

I'm assuming synthesis is the former.

We already have that, its not synthesis, its called implants

[Vigilant111]

saracen16 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

By possibility I meant that the Reapers could have decided to not cooperates with us.

General knowledge in the ME universe argues that the creation of an AI race means the death of organics. It may not be a certainty but it is a possibiltiy and we should take the necessary steps to prevent it.

General knowledge in the ME universe argues that the presence of the Reapers means the death of organics (and synthetics). It may not  be a certainty but it is a possibility and we should take the necessary steps to prevent it.

So (here it comes) the presence of Germans means the death of Jews?

Wrong Analogy, reapers are created by (speculation) organics, the examples u provided are both organics, and no one is inferior than the other

Modifié par Vigilant111, 02 juillet 2012 - 02:29 .

[saracen16]

Vigilant111 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

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.

I'm assuming synthesis is the former.

We already have that, its not synthesis, its called implants

Implants are macroscopic. Synthesis is microscopic. Also, implants are just one form of merger. Synthesis is another.

Vigilant111 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

By possibility I meant that the Reapers could have decided to not cooperates with us.

General knowledge in the ME universe argues that the creation of an AI race means the death of organics. It may not be a certainty but it is a possibiltiy and we should take the necessary steps to prevent it.

General knowledge in the ME universe argues that the presence of the Reapers means the death of organics (and synthetics). It may not  be a certainty but it is a possibility and we should take the necessary steps to prevent it.

So (here it comes) the presence of Germans means the death of Jews?

Wrong Analogy, reapers are created by (speculation) organics, the examples u provided are both organics

He's talking about the presence of one group implying the elimination of another. Does the presence of Arabs mean the death of Americans? 

Modifié par saracen16, 02 juillet 2012 - 02:29 .

[Uncle Jo]

saracen16 wrote...

Tech singularity is one thing (i.e. AI's able to create other AI's). Synthesis, the integration of organic and synthetic, is another. They are mutually exclusive.

But it still implies that a possibility that the organics won't end wiped out by the synthetics (synthesis achieved before tech singularity with bad outcome). So much for the inevitable disappearance of the organics.

The Metacons and the Geth were in war with the Protheans and Quarians BEFORE the Reapers came, just as Project Overlord, the Zha'til, and other monstrosities came about at just the same time as the Reapers did.

The Geth had the possibility to exterminate the Quarians. They didn't. They chose to isolate themselves in order to avoid conflict with the organics. The hostile Geth were the heretics. A minority. Guess who turned them against the organics ?

The Protheans were about to turn the tide and win their war against the machines. Guess who appeared at this crucial moment ?

They believed that in the long run they allowed life to flourish regardless. They've seen in previous attempts to bring peace between the two that conflict would always arise.

That's why they messed with the Rachni ? Waging a war that could have wiped out the whole Council races and others ? That's why they turned the Protheans into expendable Collectors ? Great way to bring peace and preserve the past civilizations.

Shepard's purpose wasn't to destroy the Reapers, whose goal is to harvest. His goal is to stop them, to defeat them. Synthesis in itself is a defeat that results in everyone surviving and rebuilding, and living together in peace. The synthites are not under any oppression.

Submission is preferable to extinction ?
You have absolutely no idea that it won't be any conflict anymore in the long run. Not just because the slideshows and the propaganda voiced by EDI try to show it as such. You've just turned everyone into immortal hybrids, changing by definition their very nature. The organics and synthetics as such don't exist anymore. And the Reapers are still hanging around.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 02 juillet 2012 - 02:46 .

[Vigilant111]

saracen16 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

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.

I'm assuming synthesis is the former.

We already have that, its not synthesis, its called implants

Implants are macroscopic. Synthesis is microscopic. Also, implants are just one form of merger. Synthesis is another.

Vigilant111 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

By possibility I meant that the Reapers could have decided to not cooperates with us.

General knowledge in the ME universe argues that the creation of an AI race means the death of organics. It may not be a certainty but it is a possibiltiy and we should take the necessary steps to prevent it.

General knowledge in the ME universe argues that the presence of the Reapers means the death of organics (and synthetics). It may not  be a certainty but it is a possibility and we should take the necessary steps to prevent it.

So (here it comes) the presence of Germans means the death of Jews?

Wrong Analogy, reapers are created by (speculation) organics, the examples u provided are both organics

He's talking about the presence of one group implying the elimination of another. Does the presence of Arabs mean the death of Americans? 

So reapers are not a threat? it is a weapon of mass destruction, it needs to be eliminated!

The reapers are not just some random group of people

Modifié par Vigilant111, 02 juillet 2012 - 02:33 .

[Vigilant111]

Why does being macroscopic or macroscopic even relevant? They all do the same thing right?

No, implants are not a merger, its acquisition

It is the macroscopic EFFECT we desire

Modifié par Vigilant111, 02 juillet 2012 - 02:42 .

[saracen16]

Uncle Jo wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Tech singularity is one thing (i.e. AI's able to create other AI's). Synthesis, the integration of organic and synthetic, is another. They are mutually exclusive.

But it still imply that a possibility that the organics won't end wiped out by the synthetics (synthesis achieved before tech singularity with bad outcome). So much for the inevitable disappearance of the organics.

That doesn't matter. What matters is that through the Catalyst's experience, organics and synthetics will conflict with each other. It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, and there's evidence to support both. It, however, saw more of conflict rather than understanding, hence - after a series of failed solutions including something similar to synthesis - the Reapers.

The Metacons and the Geth were in war with the Protheans and Quarians BEFORE the Reapers came, just as Project Overlord, the Zha'til, and other monstrosities came about at just the same time as the Reapers did.

The Geth had the possibility to exterminate the Quarians. They didn't. They chose to isolate themselves in order to avoid conflict with the organics. The hostile Geth were the heretics. A minority. Guess who turned them against the organics?

An error in their code that stated that their future is with the Reapers, not with that Dyson Sphere. There's no evidence to suggest that it was a Reaper virus in ME2. It is, however, the case in ME3.

The Protheans were about to turn the tide and win their war against the machines. Guess who appeared at this crucial moment ?

That's what I just said. It supports the postulate that conflict is inevitable between organics and synthetics. In short, it reaffirms the Reaper's statement.

They believed that in the long run they allowed life to flourish regardless. They've seen in previous attempts to bring peace between the two that conflict would always arise.

That's why they messed with the Rachni ? Waging a war that could have wiped out the whole Council races and others ? That's why they turned the Protheans into expendable Collectors ? Great way to bring peace and preserve the past civilizations.

They influenced past civilizations the same way they used the Rachni. Vendetta even says so himself, that many similar patterns of conflict reappear in each cycle, but in a different manner. The Reapers are responsible for this pattern, and the Rachni are just one part of this conflict.

Shepard's purpose wasn't to destroy the Reapers, whose goal is to harvest. His goal is to stop them, to defeat them. Synthesis in itself is a defeat that results in everyone surviving and rebuilding, and living together in peace. The synthites are not under any oppression.

Submission is preferable to extinction ?

And how pray tell does that answer my post? Synthesis is NOT submission.

You have absolutely no idea that it won't be any conflict anymore in the long run. Not just because the slideshows and the propaganda voiced by EDI try to show it as such. You've just turned everyone into immortal hybrids, changing by definition their very nature. The organics and synthetics as such don't exist anymore. And the Reapers are still hanging around.

Actually, I have every idea to believe that conflict is impossible with synthesis between organics and synthetics for one simple reason: the barriers between them have fallen. There is understanding and perfection for all. They're not organics nor synthetics anymore, but something else. In fact, the only ending which guarantees a return of the conflict is the destroy ending. Organics will always seek control over what they create.

[saracen16]

Vigilant111 wrote...


So reapers are not a threat? it is a weapon of mass destruction, it needs to be eliminated!

They're not WMD's. They're Reapers.

The reapers are not just some random group of people

You're right. They are the collective consciousness of advanced civilizations that came before them. There is wisdom in harnessing the strength of your enemy. To kill one of them is tantamount to genocide.

Why does being macroscopic or macroscopic even relevant? They all do the same thing right?

No, they don't. Implants are limited to the function they carry out. Synthites are new organisms altogether. The biochemistry itself is altered, and the line between organic and synthetic is even more blurred. Implants allow you to retain your identity and biological structure as an organic.

No, implants are not a merger, its acquisition

It is the macroscopic EFFECT we desire

Implants are a merger. In the Mass Effect universe, they interface with organic tissue.

[Enthalpy]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Enthalpy wrote...

Synthesis was never about firepower or efficiency; in case you haven't read the OP, please do read it. Synthesis isn't even about who's "superior," in whatever arbitrary scale we choose. It is about eliminating the basis of the Reapers' need to continue the cycles.

Yes I get it, a mutually beneficial exchange of quality of some sorts, but does it have to be done in this way?

May I ask you what that basis is? Why was the Catalyst so concerned about that basis?

In the Catalyst's POV, firepower or efficiency are required for survival, absolutely essential but this is a very primitive idea "the fittest survive"

Do u really think by jumping into the beam then your fate about organic / synthetic affairs are all sealed? Synthesis does not assure everything organic / synthetic, new organics will rise and so would new synthetics

It is mutually beneficial insofar as the continuation of the cycle is concerned (i.e. the cycle will stop). It is not completely beneficial, for example, from the perspective of a turian who really fancied himself with orange eyes and instead got these weird green ones. I do not know why it has to be done by releasing some sort of energy from a vaguely lollipop-shaped superstructure. However, the Catalyst offers this as the only path to immediate synthesis. According to it, then: yes, it has to be done this way. I believe the thread about eventual synthesis stemming from the Control ending is still around, though.

The quality that is exchanged (and the basis that is altered) is understanding for the synthetics and technology for the organics, in the Catalyst's own words. Prior to Synthesis (with the capitalization denoting the moment the choice is made), the Catalyst believes that organics and synthetics would always come into conflict, with the synthetics always victorious. It believes that after Synthesis, organics and synthetics would be able to coexist, due to each form of life gaining an understanding of the other, and also due to the (inferred) ability of both parties to advance at the same pace. The Catalyst is concerned about the interactions between organics and synthetics because it was programmed to be concerned about it.

The Catalyst believes synthetics will be victorious in a war against organics. This may be due to firepower, or processing speed, or efficiency of space, or instantaneous training, or mass-manufacture of platforms, or any number of things important in futuristic warfare. Survival of the "fittest," in that setting, is a primitive concept as much as physics is a primitive concept. 

When Shepard jumps into the beam, Shepard's fate is certainly sealed. Could you elaborate on the part about Shepard's affairs? As to the last question: I am not certain what those future beings should be called. Synganics? Orthetics? 

All joking aside, though. My point is that, for the foreseeable future (in EDI's retelling), life is fundamentally different. I cannot imagine how "pure," sentient synthetics or organics might find a place in the world, nor how they would arise in the first place. (Don't want to speculate much now. Good night, you wonderful bunch.)

[Vigilant111]

saracen16 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...


So reapers are not a threat? it is a weapon of mass destruction, it needs to be eliminated!

They're not WMD's. They're Reapers.

The reapers are not just some random group of people

You're right. They are the collective consciousness of advanced civilizations that came before them. There is wisdom in harnessing the strength of your enemy. To kill one of them is tantamount to genocide.

Why does being macroscopic or macroscopic even relevant? They all do the same thing right?

No, they don't. Implants are limited to the function they carry out. Synthites are new organisms altogether. The biochemistry itself is altered, and the line between organic and synthetic is even more blurred. Implants allow you to retain your identity and biological structure as an organic.

No, implants are not a merger, its acquisition

It is the macroscopic EFFECT we desire

Implants are a merger. In the Mass Effect universe, they interface with organic tissue.

The collective minds being conscious is speculative, they are useful only if they can come alive (or at least restored into original form) again, the genocide has been committed by the reapers, u cannot kill a dead person again

It is almost like saying I shouldn't kill a husk cos it used to be a person, and we killed at least 2 harbingers

When u said that the reapers are a collection of consiousness, where exactly is this collection located? in harbinger? a husk? but isn't harbinger just a weapon?

You also need to imply that the reapers keep all these wonderful undead consciousness alive (by providing some kind of life support) cos the ascended are not AIs, is there an impossibility to harvest these minds out when reapers die?

If synthesis is possible then I don't think there is anything impossible. In other words, destroy may not actually destroy this consciousness, unless u claim the "undead organics" ARE the reapers

To me they are only best to serve as speciments, since they are already dead

U said that implants allow retention of identity, so synthesis doesn't? then I don't want it

Modifié par Vigilant111, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:48 .

[KingZayd]

saracen16 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

By possibility I meant that the Reapers could have decided to not cooperates with us.

General knowledge in the ME universe argues that the creation of an AI race means the death of organics. It may not be a certainty but it is a possibiltiy and we should take the necessary steps to prevent it.

General knowledge in the ME universe argues that the presence of the Reapers means the death of organics (and synthetics). It may not  be a certainty but it is a possibility and we should take the necessary steps to prevent it.

So (here it comes) the presence of Germans means the death of Jews?

I was using the same argument used for dealing with synthetics. Did you not look at what I was quoting?

And also, no. There was a time where Germans were killing Jews. It's not the same as Germans always killing Jews. If it was, your counterpoint would have had more validity.

Modifié par KingZayd, 02 juillet 2012 - 10:59 .

[lillitheris]

SpectreVeldt wrote...

Okay, see, this just is, again, operating under the assumption that Synthesis is that simple, when it can be, in fact, incredibly complex, with many different variables (that you personally don't see fit to discuss).

Crispies on a ******. It. Does. Not. Matter. What. Synthesis. Does.

What matters is that you do not know what it does.

I can’t say this any clearer: the outcome of a decision is irrelevant when trying to assess the morality of the decision.

Strawman, once again.  You are discussing morality--not me.  I am, again, encouraging more empirical thought processes.

Then please stop reading my posts. I can’t say it any more clearly:

1. The actual outcome of Synthesis is irrelevant in assessing the morality of choosing Synthesis;
2. I have no interest in discussing anything but the morality of choosing Synthesis.

Once you understand this, you’ll be much better off.

[Shaigunjoe]

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.

…

Let me provide you with an analogous question:

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 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%?

Wow, that is one of the most awful analogies I have read.  It immediatly equates the other 3 choices into one in which no one is affected by your choice.

I agree that as far as the roleplaying aspect is concerned, you can't base it on what you know is going to happen.  However, this was discussed pages and pages ago.  Though it was prior to the EC, maybe you are looking for a post EC answer, which I can't give yet because I haven't played it (GASP! Stupid deus ex steam sale, took up all my gaming time last week).

[lillitheris]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Let me provide you with an analogous question:

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 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%?

Wow, that is one of the most awful analogies I have read.  It immediatly equates the other 3 choices into one in which no one is affected by your choice.

That part is not representative (nor is the 80/20 split, or the 5 people…) I am only trying to illustrate the fundamental issue:

You don’t know what will happen.

Not in the “you might get run over when you go out tomorrow” sense but in the “there might be carnivorous unicorns and bunnies when you go out tomorrow”

I agree that as far as the roleplaying aspect is concerned, you can't base it on what you know is going to happen.  However, this was discussed pages and pages ago.

No, it wasn’t. This is the question that is consistently avoided.

What’s your answer?

[DrZann]

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.

I guess I'm pro-synth so I'll take a stab at it.

Is Synthesis necessary? No it is not. There are two other choices. It is necessary if you want to avoid the genocide or subjection of at least one life-form.

[Shaigunjoe]

I definitely answered it then, feel free to dig it up. As soon as I do the EC I'll answer it again, I just don't wont to go through the motions until I actually play the EC.

[DrZann]

lillitheris wrote...

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.

But the outcome of the other choices are known. Genocide or subjugation of at least one life-form. These are known quantities at the time of the decision. Don't you think it would be morally remiss to make such an important decision based solely on your anxiety of an uncertain future?

Modifié par DrZann, 02 juillet 2012 - 01:40 .

[Ieldra]

DrZann wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
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.

But the outcome of the other choices are known. Genocide or subjugation of at least one life-form. These are known quantities at the time of the decision. Don't you think it would be morally remiss to make such an important decision based solely on your anxiety of an uncertain future?

I think the argument that we don't know the outcome has been fundamentally undermined by the added Catalyst exposition of the Extended Cut. "Organics will be perfected by fully integrating with synthetic technology, while synthetics will finally gain full understanding of organics" is rather concrete compared to what we had before.

So we now have some known outcomes, and they are very much relevant to making the decision. Both parts of this description sound rather interesting and not at all bad. It is now rather easy to believe that this solution will be the best for the galaxy.

[MisterJB]

KingZayd wrote...
General knowledge in the ME universe argues that the presence of the Reapers means the death of organics (and synthetics). It may not  be a certainty but it is a possibility and we should take the necessary steps to prevent it.

Many would say the same thing about krogans. Did you perpetuate the Genophage based on the possibily the Cure might mean the return of the Krogan Rebellions?

We can only make peace with our enemies. It may be the most difficult path but that does not mean the attempt for peace should not be made.

Modifié par MisterJB, 02 juillet 2012 - 02:14 .

[Welsh Inferno]

lillitheris wrote...

You don’t know what will happen.

Not in the “you might get run over when you go out tomorrow” sense but in the “there might be carnivorous unicorns and bunnies when you go out tomorrow”

I agree that as far as the roleplaying aspect is concerned, you can't base it on what you know is going to happen.  However, this was discussed pages and pages ago.

No, it wasn’t. This is the question that is consistently avoided.

What’s your answer?

You don't know what will happen on any of the choices though, even refusal. We can't see into the future. You either believe what the Catalyst says or you dont. How does that change anything?

As for not metagaming, considering the Catalyst is contradictory and generally badly written I choose to believe that the Catalyst tells you more about them than he actually does. And doesn't freakin' contradict himself constantly. For the sake of my sanity if anything.  
I'm also willing to believe it for the most part because the Crucible changes it, the Catalyst is only projecting what choices the Crucible offers. Actually he contradicts himself on this too. Once saying that the Crucible is just a power source and another saying it changed him and offered all the new possibilities. Has to be both, just explained really badly.

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 02 juillet 2012 - 02:14 .

[Heeden]

lillitheris wrote...

Then please stop reading my posts. I can’t say it any more clearly:

1. The actual outcome of Synthesis is irrelevant in assessing the morality of choosing Synthesis;
2. I have no interest in discussing anything but the morality of choosing Synthesis.

Once you understand this, you’ll be much better off.

The morality of Synthesis is pretty irrelevant when you consider the other options are equally (if not more) immoral. Whatever the methodology of Synthesis, it gives free-will to a race who have beens slaves since their inception and provides a new framework of development that everyone else may take advantage of.

Compared to the alternatives of re-brainwashing the slaves to follow your agenda or executing the slaves and taking out a portion of your own allies as collateral damage, Synthesis is really the only moral choice you can take (other than Refuse of course, but choosing inaction makes you complicit with the Reaper cycle).

[Heeden]

Vigilant111 wrote...

The collective minds being conscious is speculative, they are useful only if they can come alive (or at least restored into original form) again, the genocide has been committed by the reapers, u cannot kill a dead person again

It is almost like saying I shouldn't kill a husk cos it used to be a person, and we killed at least 2 harbingers

Whether the uploaded minds have an individual existence or just an abstract form that adds to the whole, the Reapers still preserve in some way the diversity, experience and knowledge of harvested races. Beyond that the Reapers are themselves living entities (if you believe synthetics can be considered alive, if not I think you missed a major theme in the series), as entitled to have their race continue as the Krogan, Rachni and Geth.

When u said that the reapers are a collection of consiousness, where exactly is this collection located? in harbinger? a husk? but isn't harbinger just a weapon?

In ME2 it showed the harvested races are used to create a reaper-core that takes the form of the harvested race (in this case a human skeleton). Those cores are interred in the Cthulhu-like Reaper ships. Harbinger is "just a weapon" in the same way EDI is "just a machine" and Shepard is "just an animal".

You also need to imply that the reapers keep all these wonderful undead consciousness alive (by providing some kind of life support) cos the ascended are not AIs, is there an impossibility to harvest these minds out when reapers die?

Organic minds can be uploaded to a virtual environment, as shown when Shepard entered the Geth consensus.

If synthesis is possible then I don't think there is anything impossible. In other words, destroy may not actually destroy this consciousness, unless u claim the "undead organics" ARE the reapers

Not undead, "differently alive", and yes the uploaded organics are the Reapers, conjoined in to a single "ascended" form and enslaved to the Catalyst's will. Yes there is a chance you may be able to ressurect the Reapers and gain access to this information, but it's not certain the Lazarus technique would work on them or that we have the technological know-how to effect repairs on Reapers who will be far more damaged than non-Reaper tech (if you have high EMS, with low EMS everything is equally fubar).

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

DrZann wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
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.

But the outcome of the other choices are known. Genocide or subjugation of at least one life-form. These are known quantities at the time of the decision. Don't you think it would be morally remiss to make such an important decision based solely on your anxiety of an uncertain future?

I think the argument that we don't know the outcome has been fundamentally undermined by the added Catalyst exposition of the Extended Cut. "Organics will be perfected by fully integrating with synthetic technology, while synthetics will finally gain full understanding of organics" is rather concrete compared to what we had before.

Compared to, yes. Absolutely, no. It tells you nothing.

[JamieCOTC]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

You don’t know what will happen.

Not in the “you might get run over when you go out tomorrow” sense but in the “there might be carnivorous unicorns and bunnies when you go out tomorrow”

I agree that as far as the roleplaying aspect is concerned, you can't base it on what you know is going to happen.  However, this was discussed pages and pages ago.

No, it wasn’t. This is the question that is consistently avoided.

What’s your answer?

You don't know what will happen on any of the choices though, even refusal. We can't see into the future. You either believe what the Catalyst says or you dont. How does that change anything?

As for not metagaming, considering the Catalyst is contradictory and generally badly written I choose to believe that the Catalyst tells you more about them than he actually does. And doesn't freakin' contradict himself constantly. For the sake of my sanity if anything.  
I'm also willing to believe it for the most part because the Crucible changes it, the Catalyst is only projecting what choices the Crucible offers. Actually he contradicts himself on this too. Once saying that the Crucible is just a power source and another saying it changed him and offered all the new possibilities. Has to be both, just explained really badly.

Actually, I like that he contradicts himself. It adds texture to the idea that he is insane.