Aller au contenu

Photo

A different ascension - the Synthesis compendium (now with EC material integrated)


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
9089 réponses à ce sujet

#2701
lillitheris

lillitheris
  • Members
  • 5 332 messages

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?


Yes, which is why it’s not based solely on that. At the same time, it’s nowhere near as irresponsible as making a decision with an unknown outcome on the basis that it might be good.

This is what my analogy illustrates, because it seems to get ignored or deliberately obfuscated. Right here on these last few pages, people are very studiously avoiding all moral implications of that choice in a manner that is outright frightening.

Control is preferable even if you decide to believe in that it leads to ‘subjugation’, because you have the option to choose Synthesis or otherwise liberate them at a later time. It gains you time to understand what the nature of things actually is — whether the Reapers are truly benevolent hiveminds despite never showing any tendency toward that, what the actual effects of Synthesis are, and so on. It is irresponsible to choose an unknown in this case. If it were just Shepard or a bunch of volunteers, guinea pigging would perfectly fine. Now it isn’t.

I can entertain the thought that someone could explain to me how they justify the unknown over the known, but at this point, nobody’s actually done so…

Modifié par lillitheris, 02 juillet 2012 - 03:05 .


#2702
Heeden

Heeden
  • Members
  • 856 messages

lillitheris wrote...

Yes, which is why it’s not based solely on that. At the same time, it’s nowhere near as irresponsible as making a decision with an unknown outcome on the basis that it might be good.

This is what my analogy illustrates, because it seems to get ignored or deliberately obfuscated. Right here on these last few pages, people are very studiously avoiding all moral implications of that choice in a manner that is outright frightening.

Control is preferable even if you decide to believe in that it leads to ‘subjugation’, because you have the option to choose Synthesis or otherwise liberate them at a later time. It gains you time to understand what the nature of things actually is — whether the Reapers are truly benevolent hiveminds despite never showing any tendency toward that, what the actual effects of Synthesis are, and so on. It is irresponsible to choose an unknown in this case. If it were just Shepard or a bunch of volunteers, guinea pigging would perfectly fine. Now it isn’t.


Firstly I find the idea of sentients being enslaved completely abhorent, even if it is only for a little while. Secondly I would not for one moment like my Shepard to have access to the kind of power the Reapers represent. We've seen what can happen when one being has access to that sort of power, they lose perspective and enact the Reaper cycle. My Shepard is an almost-total paragon (but some people were just asking for a good punching) yet he has still employed an extraordinary amount of violence in pursuit of his goals, I would not want to risk what would happen if he was the mightiest force in the galaxy without the benefits of peer-pressure to keep him grounded.

I can entertain the thought that someone could explain to me how they justify the unknown over the known, but at this point, nobody’s actually done so…


It's quite simple - the known is morally abhorent, the unknown sounds quite pleasant. The alternative is Refuse so everyone dies.

#2703
SpectreVeldt

SpectreVeldt
  • Members
  • 80 messages

lillitheris wrote...

SpectreVeldt wrote...
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.


I am officially arguing with a friggin 12 year-old.  You responded to me.  Not only continuously, but the very first time.  I had not even been paying attention to any of your posts, but you took it upon yourself to respond to mine, which was:

"...presenting all systematic components.  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.  Etc."

And this is the last time I will state it because you are the only poster who cannot comprehend anything--ANYTHING--I have said: I was encouraging logical discussion.  I know now that 'empirical thought processes' is perhaps too complex for you.

Once again: I was encouraging logical discussion.  I was encouraging logical discussion.

I was...encouraging logical discussion.  I'm sorry you don't personally believe in logical discussion.  Anything else that was brought up--was YOU, AND YOU ALONE (while you were demanding that I stop encouraging logical discussion, btw).  Once you understand this, you'll be better off...in life and in general.

I think, at this point, no matter what you've been saying in any other posts, that nobody else could or should take someone who is against logical discussion (you) seriously.  Anyone else talking to you, would be talking to a wall (who hates logical discussion).  Feel free to respond, i.e., repeat yourself (freedom of speech, etc), but I did not come on here to argue with a Youtuber.  I wasn't even arguing until you responded to me, actually.  I was making a statement (ENCOURAGING LOGICAL DISCUSSION).  You took it upon yourself to provide me with my own arguments and ideas and then it was like watching someone argue with themself (post after post).  Take your own advice and just stop.  (Well, after you get your last word in, anyway.)

I feel like Renegade Shepard: "HEY, EVERYONE--LILLITHERIS DISCRIMINATES AGAINST LOGICAL DISCUSSION!  LILLITHERIS HATES LOGICAL DISCUSSION AND EVEN THE MENTION OF IT AND WON'T HAVE IT IN THIS THREAD!" 

#2704
lillitheris

lillitheris
  • Members
  • 5 332 messages

Welsh Inferno wrote...

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?


This is false equivalence. There are unknowns, and unknowables. The Catalyst explains the options, and D/C/R have clearly delineated effects. Synthesis doesn’t.

I might get run over by a truck tonight. Or have a heart attack next week. The future is unknown, but we can reason about it. We have a frame of reference for it, and can account for various eventualities.

There is no frame of reference for what happens in Synthesis. Utterly none.

#2705
lillitheris

lillitheris
  • Members
  • 5 332 messages

SpectreVeldt wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

SpectreVeldt wrote...
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.


I am officially arguing with a friggin 12 year-old.  You responded to me.  Not only continuously, but the very first time.  I had not even been paying attention to any of your posts, but you took it upon yourself to respond to mine, which was:


Again, please stop reading my posts if you have problems confining debate to the simple moral aspect. It’s really that easy. Honestly.

I’m interested solely in the very well-defined aspect of the morality of the choice. I’ve even laid out the premises and logic involved in that aspect. You’re welcome to participate. If you have a problem with the premise (“the outcome of a decision is irrelevant in assessing the morality of the decision”), you can challenge that, but present actual arguments. I feel it’s fair to warn you that there’re not many philosophers who would disagree…

You’re welcome to ‘foster logical discussion’ about the other aspects of Synthesis. I don’t care about those, especially if it mainly consists of yelling ‘fostering’ whenever you can.

Modifié par lillitheris, 02 juillet 2012 - 03:21 .


#2706
KingZayd

KingZayd
  • Members
  • 5 344 messages

MisterJB wrote...

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.


Krogan:
A) There was 1 Krogan Rebellion.
B) We can beat the Krogans without a Crucible.
C) I saved the Krogans because I had first hand experience that not all Krogans were bad.

Reapers:
A) The pattern of extinction has repeated itself more times than you can fathom.
B) We can't beat the Reapers without a Crucible.
C) No peaceful Reapers ever encountered. They have all been hostile.

If the Reapers wanted peace it would be easy. Shepard said we'd rather keep our own form. Starchild said "No." All the Reapers would have to do is stop killing us, and leave our worlds and our people alone. The only reason we're at war with the Reapers is because they attacked us.

Modifié par KingZayd, 02 juillet 2012 - 03:19 .


#2707
JamieCOTC

JamieCOTC
  • Members
  • 6 355 messages

lillitheris 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?


Yes, which is why it’s not based solely on that. At the same time, it’s nowhere near as irresponsible as making a decision with an unknown outcome on the basis that it might be good.

This is what my analogy illustrates, because it seems to get ignored or deliberately obfuscated. Right here on these last few pages, people are very studiously avoiding all moral implications of that choice in a manner that is outright frightening.

Control is preferable even if you decide to believe in that it leads to ‘subjugation’, because you have the option to choose Synthesis or otherwise liberate them at a later time. It gains you time to understand what the nature of things actually is — whether the Reapers are truly benevolent hiveminds despite never showing any tendency toward that, what the actual effects of Synthesis are, and so on. It is irresponsible to choose an unknown in this case. If it were just Shepard or a bunch of volunteers, guinea pigging would perfectly fine. Now it isn’t.

I can entertain the thought that someone could explain to me how they justify the unknown over the known, but at this point, nobody’s actually done so…


It's a leap of faith plain and simple. That's even illustrated in the narrative as Shepard has to physically leap into the beam to choose this path.

#2708
lillitheris

lillitheris
  • Members
  • 5 332 messages

JamieCOTC wrote...

It's a leap of faith plain and simple. That's even illustrated in the narrative as Shepard has to physically leap into the beam to choose this path.


Yes, but that sounds awfully euphemistic. If it was just you, by all means, leap all you want. But don’t leap for me without asking first. Edit: I just want to stress this: the right to self-determination is arguably the most important of all human rights. You’re taking that away. “Leap of faith” doesn’t convey the gravity of the situation.

That’s why I posed my analogy. Would you, in that case, want to take a “leap of faith” and press the button to see if the people die or get rich?

Modifié par lillitheris, 02 juillet 2012 - 03:26 .


#2709
Heeden

Heeden
  • Members
  • 856 messages

lillitheris wrote...

Yes, but that sounds awfully euphemistic. If it was just you, by all means, leap all you want. But don’t leap for me without asking first.

That’s why I posed my analogy. Would you, in that case, want to take a “leap of faith” and press the button to see if the people die or get rich?


You're analogy doesn't really relate to the situation.

You have ten people in the room and three buttons. The red button shoots three people in the face, the blue button rams electrodes in to the head of one of the people to control his behaviour (as an added tragedy, this person has always been controlled this way and you are merely taking over from another manipulator). The green button gives everyone a present but runs the risk some people might not like what they get (although it will at least turn off the electrodes controlling the unfortunate).

Modifié par Heeden, 02 juillet 2012 - 03:28 .


#2710
SpectreVeldt

SpectreVeldt
  • Members
  • 80 messages

lillitheris wrote...
Again, please stop reading my posts if you have problems confining debate to the simple moral aspect. It’s really that easy. Honestly.

As I stated multiple times, I didn't.  I did not even mention having any sort of problem with that.  You made that up in your mind, which is why you responded to me.

You’re welcome to ‘foster logical discussion’ about the other aspects of Synthesis. I don’t care about those, especially if it mainly consists of yelling ‘fostering’ whenever you can.

Well, no crap.  NOW you say I can encourage logical discussion after you realize how stupid it is to demand I stop.  And if you didn't care "about those," then why bloody respond to my first post IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Hopefully you're starting to realize that what happened was that I wanted to "foster logical discussion about the other aspects of Synthesis" in a rather standalone comment.  Note that this post was not directed at or even near you.  You then responded to me, demanding that I stop encouraging this because the only things that mattered were what you were talking about.  Idiotic.  And the only reason I'm still talking is because, admittedly, I'm getting a sick kind of pleasure in showcasing the aforementioned.

#2711
Enthalpy

Enthalpy
  • Members
  • 105 messages

Heeden wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Yes, but that sounds awfully euphemistic. If it was just you, by all means, leap all you want. But don’t leap for me without asking first.

That’s why I posed my analogy. Would you, in that case, want to take a “leap of faith” and press the button to see if the people die or get rich?


You're analogy doesn't really relate to the situation.

You have ten people in the room and three buttons. The red button shoots three people in the face, the blue button rams electrodes in to the head of one of the people to control his behaviour (as an added tragedy, this person has always been controlled this way and you are merely taking over from another manipulator). The green button gives everyone a present but runs the risk some people might not like what they get (although it will at least turn off the electrodes controlling the unfortunate).


And if you do nothing, everyone gets to be an electroded person!

#2712
lillitheris

lillitheris
  • Members
  • 5 332 messages

SpectreVeldt wrote...

Hopefully you're starting to realize that what happened was that I wanted to "foster logical discussion about the other aspects of Synthesis" in a rather standalone comment.  Note that this post was not directed at or even near you.


Welcome to discussion forums. There are many people here.

You said “Everyone is arguing over their own personal set of moral beliefs, which
is their own way of answering that very question (if this particular end
justifies the means),”

And I said that that (“do ends justify the means?”) is the wrong question, which it is. Furthermore, I specified that whatever other detail there may be to know about Synthesis is irrelevant to the right question.

I’m sorry if that confused you.

Modifié par lillitheris, 02 juillet 2012 - 04:25 .


#2713
lillitheris

lillitheris
  • Members
  • 5 332 messages

Heeden wrote...

You're analogy doesn't really relate to the situation.


It does not represent the entire situation of the game endings, you’re absolutely correct. It’s not meant to. I want to get people to truly understand the horror I feel that someone would play with other people’s lives like that as a “leap of faith”.

The green button gives everyone a present but runs the risk some people might not like what they get (although it will at least turn off the electrodes controlling the unfortunate).


This is an incorrect description of the problem unless your present is, let’s say, a forced sex-change operation — and incidentally why I do not wish to even attempt to make an analogy of the entire scenario. (It’s mostly unnecessary anyway, since we have the full scenario at hand.)

Once there’s actually a sense of the sheer magnitude of the denial of a basic human right in favor of a “leap of faith”, then I think we can actually integrate the decision into the larger scheme and evaluate whether there is any basis for choosing it.

#2714
SpectreVeldt

SpectreVeldt
  • Members
  • 80 messages

lillitheris wrote...

SpectreVeldt wrote...

Hopefully you're starting to realize that what happened was that I wanted to "foster logical discussion about the other aspects of Synthesis" in a rather standalone comment.  Note that this post was not directed at or even near you.


Welcome to discussion forums. There are many people here.

You said “Everyone is arguing over their own personal set of moral beliefs, which
is their own way of answering that very question (if this particular end
justifies the means),”

And I said that that (“do ends justify the means?”) is the wrong question, which it is. Furthermore, I specified that whatever other detail there may be to know about Synthesis is irrelevant to the right question.

I’m sorry if that confused you.


Actually, "do ends justify the means" was not MY question and I was not trying to answer it.  I was merely observing that this is what a lot of people have been trying to answer, stating that there are other potential questions to answer--other aspects, and then encouraged empirical methodology.  Which just goes back to strawman: you responding to either what you thought I said or wanted me to say (so you could refute it).

#2715
JamieCOTC

JamieCOTC
  • Members
  • 6 355 messages

lillitheris wrote...

JamieCOTC wrote...

It's a leap of faith plain and simple. That's even illustrated in the narrative as Shepard has to physically leap into the beam to choose this path.


Yes, but that sounds awfully euphemistic. If it was just you, by all means, leap all you want. But don’t leap for me without asking first. Edit: I just want to stress this: the right to self-determination is arguably the most important of all human rights. You’re taking that away. “Leap of faith” doesn’t convey the gravity of the situation.

That’s why I posed my analogy. Would you, in that case, want to take a “leap of faith” and press the button to see if the people die or get rich?


Yes, synthesis comes with a very dubious moral dilemma.  Without question.  I contend that the Reapers are just as much victims of the Catalyst’s insane solution as anyone in Shepard’s cycle.  The Reapers are the consciousness of the harvested civilizations. You gamble that they want to be free just like you gamble in Destroy that your children won’t build synthetics and start the whole thing over. Or at least you gamble that if your children do build synthetics, they will learn from Shepard’s cycle and not rebel. In Control, Shepard is not only controlling the Reapers, but also the galaxy.  Renegade Control is pretty much “Hey galaxy, live in peace or die.”   So you gamble that GodShepard doesn’t go crazy w/ power or just plain crazy as the Catalyst did.  The Geth are still out there. What if they do revolt someday? And refusal dooms everyone, but they die free. In other words, each choice comes w/ it's own unknown variable.
 
That synthesis is Shepard playing God and making this radical change for the whole galaxy is correct, but that can be said of the other choices as well, especially refusal. Ultimately I’m not sure the endings were meant to be debated logically, but are more symbolic. Destroy, your Shepard understands the price of victory in war. Control, your Shepard agrees w/ TIM in principle. Synthesis, your Shepard hopes that peace can be attained through union.  There is no right or wrong decision, though BW clearly favors synthesis for some reason.

I also think that synthesis was horribly illustrated. It should have been said that Shepard, as in an earlier draft of the script, is the blueprint for synthesis. 

Modifié par JamieCOTC, 02 juillet 2012 - 04:41 .


#2716
Ieldra

Ieldra
  • Members
  • 25 190 messages

lillitheris wrote...

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.

Considerable more than nothing, and it's actually very relevant to the decision. By your reasoning, we might as well roll dice to choose an ending because of course, we do not have absolute knowledge about the consequences. The geth will die in Destroy? Sorry, we don't actually know that, so it must not be taken into acccount.

But guess what: we never have! Not a single decision in our lives is made with such knowledge.

Also you don't take the limits of the presentation into account. The exposition you require would be a million-page book. I take what the Catalyst says as a placeholder for...well...not a million-page book, of course, but considerably more than can be presented within the context of a game. The same as the circuit pattern is an artistic representation of complex changes that would likely be mostly invisible. In order to make not acting according to strict roleplaying standards a valid complaint, you need a setup that gives you the freedom to roleplay. We don't have that freedom in ME3. I can't ask the Catalyst about the effect of the Destroy blast on habitable worlds, but an energy blast powerful enough to destroy Reapers wholesale requires such a question, don't you think? I can't ask about whether Control!Shep will retain enough of her personality to care about the galaxy's civilizations. And I can't ask about possible side effects of the integration with technology in Synthesis. And of course, even then some people would argue "you can't trust the Catalyst" and break the whole ending scenario down to yet another roll of dice.

I suggest to take the endings in the spirit they come across and not act like a Biblical literalist. This is a thematic decision you're making, based on your, the players' notion of what kind of future you see as best for the galaxy. We can argue about ethics and speculate about the specifics, but the exposition points into a certain direction and to ignore genre and theme is not an appropriate approach here. Except if you want to deconstruct everything. Which apparently you do. But I don't.

Edit:
Also what JamieOTC said.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:28 .


#2717
Heeden

Heeden
  • Members
  • 856 messages

]This is an incorrect description of the problem unless your present is, let’s say, a forced sex-change operation — and incidentally why I do not wish to even attempt to make an analogy of the entire scenario. (It’s mostly unnecessary anyway, since we have the full scenario at hand.)

Once there’s actually a sense of the sheer magnitude of the denial of a basic human right in favor of a “leap of faith”, then I think we can actually integrate the decision into the larger scheme and evaluate whether there is any basis for choosing it.


The sex change would only work if your alternate sex came in addition to your original (so you can gain feminine qualities that compliment but do not displace your masculine ones) and if the advantages of the change only come in to play when you are ready to accept them.

Actually I see the present more like a laptop with free unlimited internet, your idea is a bit too weird.

#2718
SpectreVeldt

SpectreVeldt
  • Members
  • 80 messages

lillitheris wrote...
...I specified that whatever other detail there may be to know about Synthesis is irrelevant to the right question.

lillitheris wrote...
You're welcome to 'foster logical discussion' about the other aspects of Synthesis.


You started out stating the former.  Reiterating your initial statement does not allow you to abandon the latter.  The message I'm getting:  you're welcome to discuss other venues, encourage a deeper analysis and the scientific method, BUT it's irrelevant.

Modifié par SpectreVeldt, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:15 .


#2719
Uncle Jo

Uncle Jo
  • Members
  • 2 161 messages

saracen16 wrote...

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.


While I do see your point, it still does matter IMO. Because it created the Reapers, its best solution, based on an inevitability (no matter if tech sing with bad outcome or synthesis). An absolute law with no exception. The starting point of its reasoning is at best flawed, at worst wrong. So is consequently its solution and so is synthesis, even if the latter seems to be an improved version : Reapers 2.0. It's a solution to a false problem.

By annhilating every civilization without a trace, it denied us any chance to learn of their mistakes and try to not repeat them. It condemned us to reproduce the same pattern again, again and again. After every cycle, back to square one. Its zero risk politic is as circular as its insane logic.

But it's a matter of perspective, I'm organic and think as such, not like a Reaper. And I never will.

I'm willing to to let every one evolve the way they should, not to dictate their fate. Life will always find a way to florish, no matter what could happen. That's called the miracle of life.

*snip*

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

It does support the inevitability of conflict, in no way its bad outcome for organics. On the contrary.

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.

They've smoked something they shouldn't have in this cycle then. Because it'a a curious way to influence. I'd say that it pretty much contradicts their claims. The Rachni are an intelligent race. Because of the primor, malevolent influence of the Reapers, they could have been completely wiped out. It depended only on Shepard to decide of their fate.

They claim to want to ascend the past civilizations and yet meddle with their business,taking the risk to annhilate them ? Sending Reapers to war, i.e. to an eventual destruction, is also a way to preserve them ?

To achieve their human proto-reaper, they turned their vctims into a goo, as they were still alive. Couldn't they at least knock them out ? With all their technology, it wouldn't be such a big deal. Or is it something we can't comprehend ?

Do you remember what Harbinger said about us ? How Sovereign despised the Geth ?

They didn't give a damn about organics nor synthetics. Every single thing I saw from ME1 until Marauder Shields confirmed this. It wasn't an emotionless genocide ascension. It was pure cruelty, a barbaric slaughter, which no words could describe. The brat has only his words and his insane circular logic to support what he claimed. Not enough for me.

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

Yes it is. You aknowledged that the kid was right and that his whole-heartedly advocated solution (Synthesis) is the only possible choice. You didn't even dare to control them. You submitted to his deductions and conclusions, although the Geth and EDI has proven to you that there is maybe another way to achieve peace without turning every one into cyborgs/hybrids. Without the Reapers. You took your future from the Reapers. In other words you've given up on hope.

However, I reacted more to the pic of Saren on your sig than your answer. My bad.

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.

Yes, the barriers have fallen, but do you remember that there were always conflict between organics themselves ? Between people of the same race, the same family ? Why would it be different now ? Just because everyone has green circuits and green glowing eyes ?

Unless you brainwashed everyone and removed every emotion and instinct, there is no chance in hell that the peace will last for ever. Everything has a beginning and an end.

The Control ending has its issues as well. The tech singularity threat is all but eliminated. Nothing guarantees that Reapergod Shep and her new buddies (aside from turning her to the biggest hypocrite of the Galaxy. But that's a "moral" point of view, which is unrelated to the post), won't turn against us. You've heard her talking about eternity, immortality and all. She's not organic anymore, her mindset has completely changed. And it's just the beginning.

The Destroy ending removes the Reapers from the game. A big issue fewer. They've started their pre-emptive, ruthless genocides based on a flawed assumption. They are the cycle, not the synthetics. Even if tech sing is inevitable, its outcome stays unknown. The Geth and EDI die because the writers decided to tie their fate to the destruction of your archenemy, just in order to balance the choices and for no real other reason.

Where there is life, there is death. Where there is chaos, there is order.  Where there is love, there is hate. Where there is compassion and altruism, there is cruelty and selfishness. That's how the Universe is balanced. So the dream of perfection, eternal peace and immortality, while admirable, will stay an utopia. Something we'll always try to reach but never achieve. Even with Synthesis.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:54 .


#2720
lillitheris

lillitheris
  • Members
  • 5 332 messages

Ieldra2 wrote...

Considerable more than nothing, and it's actually very relevant to the decision. By your reasoning, we might as well roll dice to choose an ending because of course, we do not have absolute knowledge about the consequences. The geth will die in Destroy? Sorry, we don't actually know that, so it must not be taken into acccount.


Why do you keep trotting out that canard? I’ve told you personally at least three times, let alone other people: unknown is not unknowable.

“Geth will die.” OK, let’s assume they do.

“There will be a new DNA. Final evolution of life.” …What?

Each of the other options have clearly stated effects. Synthesis doesn’t, as evidenced by you having to invent all kinds of fantastic theories about it.

I can't ask the Catalyst about…


You need not. You can extrapolate the worst possible outcomes, because we have a frame of reference of each of the other options. Destroy destroys anything more advanced than a toaster? OK. ShepardAI decides the whole reaping thing was a pretty great idea after all? OK. (This is not actually even implied, but you can assume it if it makes you feel better.)

I suggest to take the endings in the spirit they come across and not act like a Biblical literalist.


No. Just…no. That would be a completely pointless discussion. You’re  welcome to it, but I have no interest.

I can say that I think Synthesis actually means we all turn into unicorns. It’s just as valid as your ‘non-literal’ interpretation (in the grand scheme of things), and therefore I do not find it a compelling debate at any level.

Additionally, the whole idea is so utterly ridiculous that I do not draw any intellectual satisfaction inventing some fantasy explanation for it because I’m not solving an actual problem.

Except if you want to deconstruct everything. Which apparently you do. But I don't.


I want to deconstruct one thing. The choice.

And every single one of you is dancing around it, whatever your excuse is.

Modifié par lillitheris, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:48 .


#2721
lillitheris

lillitheris
  • Members
  • 5 332 messages

SpectreVeldt wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

You said “Everyone is arguing over their own personal set of moral beliefs, which
is their own way of answering that very question (if this particular end
justifies the means),”

And I said that that (“do ends justify the means?”) is the wrong question, which it is. Furthermore, I specified that whatever other detail there may be to know about Synthesis is irrelevant to the right question.

I’m sorry if that confused you.


Actually, "do ends justify the means" was not MY question and I was not trying to answer it.  I was merely observing that this is what a lot of people have been trying to answer,


I didn’t say it was your question. I was merely observing that the said lot of people are dealing with the wrong question.

I meant it sincerely: I’m sorry if it confused you. This is how an open discussion with multiple parties works.

#2722
Krunjar

Krunjar
  • Members
  • 609 messages
A lot of things are forced on us in our lives. We are forced to die. We are forced to eat. We are forced to excrete. Forced to breathe. And that is only in the most basic sense. Our genes continue to evolve and change despite our best efforts to remain the same. I will admit that the evolutionary jump encompassed by the synthesis is extreme. But I think it is actually somewhat amusing that people see evolution as a violating force. Honestly I think some people just think with their hormones and their brains have long rotted away. Also remember the catalyst didn't give the decision to just anyone. He gave it to the organic who had achieved the impossible struggled through countless hardships. And at the end of all of that was willing to sacrifice his/her own future to see it done. Honestly all i see in the anti-synthesis argument is an unwholesome obsession with personal purity.

#2723
lillitheris

lillitheris
  • Members
  • 5 332 messages

Krunjar wrote...

A lot of things are forced on us in our lives. We are forced to die. We are forced to eat. We are forced to excrete. Forced to breathe.


Rhetoric trick.

You’re forced to die? OK. Does that mean it’s OK if a mugger were to force you to die (e.g. by shooting you)?

#2724
SpectreVeldt

SpectreVeldt
  • Members
  • 80 messages
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
I didn’t say it was your question. I was merely observing that the said lot of people are dealing with the wrong question.

I meant it sincerely: I’m sorry if it confused you. This is how an open discussion with multiple parties works.
[/quote]
Confused?  You continuously attacked my desire for everyone to use, again, a more empirical approach.  Then, you proceeded to tell me what was important to you, presenting a side of a debate of which I wasn't even a part (for you and me).  You mean it sincerely--fine.  But don't be condescending (implying that I was the one confused because I just didn't understand your mess of words) and misrepresent what actually occurred.  The only confusion I experienced was in the form of questions: why the heck would you be against education and the scientific method?  And why the heck are you responding to me?  Why the heck are you debating with me when I'm not debating anything?

One of the things I encouraged was a deeper analysis of other aspects of Synthesis, presented as an overhead statement.  You responded viscerally, repeating that your two aspects of Synthesis were the only ones that should be discussed.  Just call it for what it is!  I.E., 'My statements were confusing.'  It's like your own (contradictory/confusing) quotes:

[quote]lillitheris wrote...
...I specified that whatever other detail there may be to know about Synthesis is irrelevant to the right question.[/quote][quote]lillitheris wrote...
You're welcome to 'foster logical discussion' about the other aspects of Synthesis.[/quote]
[/quote]

Modifié par SpectreVeldt, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:12 .


#2725
lillitheris

lillitheris
  • Members
  • 5 332 messages

SpectreVeldt wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
I didn’t say it was your question. I was merely observing that the said lot of people are dealing with the wrong question.

I meant it sincerely: I’m sorry if it confused you. This is how an open discussion with multiple parties works.

Confused?  You continuously attacked my desire for everyone to use, again, a more empirical approach.  Then, you proceeded to tell me what was important to you, presenting a side of a debate of which I wasn't even a part (for you and me).


Ugh. It’s better you just ignore me from now on, if this is really so difficult for you. Please.

You seem to be in a place where it’s impossible to understand that this is not a personal attack on you somehow. I’ve made two very clear points, one of which is that empiricism has nothing to do with the moral question (it happens after the question and is therefore irrelevant). If they do not apply to you, then just don’t worry about it. If you do wish to address my points, do so. If you wish to address some other points that I’m not interested in, do that.

Modifié par lillitheris, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:23 .