9087 réponses à ce sujet

[Subguy614]

OP makes 5-6 assumptions that are NOT stated in-game. Also, discards in-game material that is counter to his/her hypothesis.

If OP would just admit that this is just headcannon, we could end this idiotic thread for good.

[Taboo]

Subguy614 wrote...

OP makes 5-6 assumptions that are NOT stated in-game. Also, discards in-game material that is counter to his/her hypothesis.

If OP would just admit that this is just headcannon, we could end this idiotic thread for good.

Your opinions mean nothing here.

I tried.

All of yesterday.

[Taboo]

The political implications are so disgusting it's not even funny.

[antares_sublight]

How much damage would an EMP do to all life in the area?

[Taboo]

antares_sublight wrote...

How much damage would an EMP do to all life in the area?

What are you talking about?

[Uncle Jo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Uncle_Jo:
Oh my....so many flaws in a single post. Let me help you out:

(1) That Synthesis turns everyone into husks is nonsense. Joker and EDI look pretty much like themselves.
(2) It is our goal to stop the Reapers. Destroying them is *one* way to do that. For a long time, it appeared it was the only one. That's why everyone said it's what must be done. New possibilities appeared, foreshadowed by TIM, confirmed and expanded in the Catalyst dialogue. This was new information. Being unable to mentally adapt to new information is a sign of mental deficiency.
(3) Nowhere is it suggested post-Synthesis intelligent life will have no flaws. Gaining more power and understanding does not equal gaining infinite power and understanding, even less a perfectly working moral compass. Even more to the point, mistakes you still make tend to have bigger consequences.
(4) Eugenics means "improving the gene pool of a population". First, nothing of that kind is done, since - read the OP - it's not a genetic rewrite. Second, it's not a bad goal as such. It only becomes problematic with the methods used, particularly if your opinion of what's good is tainted by a political ideology.
(5) There is no "violation of nature". I am part of nature, and so is everything I do. There is no imperative to leave anything untouched by the hands of intelligent life. It's just a useful guideline at times.
(6) I am not "playing god", I am trying to act as a responsible god. Godlike power is thrust into my hands by the situation, I do not have the option not to use it or the galaxy will fall to the Reapers. I am called to use it as best as I can.

So, please try to understand what I've written before you go on to demonize Synthesis with baseless assertions and association fallacies.

Hello again.

1) Forgot we're talking about the ending taken at face value. Is "Cyborg" more convenient ? I still remember you that you're doing it without the consent of the concerned.

2) I strongly disagree. With control and synthesis the Reapers are still hanging around and I doubt the Galaxy races will see them as new buddies. Even if Shep comes with his brand new tentacles to say. "Trust me the Reaper threat is gone" (that if you still think that a mere human is able to control a millions years old, incredibly powerful and intelligent Race)

3)"The Synthesis draws on Christian mythology, Hegelian dialectics and transhumanist philosophy to hint at a state of physical perfection and overcoming of fundamental opposites".

I'm quoting you in your other thread "What is the Synthesis? An extrapolation for a plausible scenario" (OP)

"[...] Synthesis as a good ending emerges where both organics and synthetics are improved by having acquired desirable traits from the other, while retaining their fundamental nature."

Nope, you're modifying the structure of every single living in the galaxy up to the molecular level. I don't know how their fundamental nature remains.

4) What do you think you're doing by merging synthetics and organics ? "The chain reaction will combine all synthetic and organic life into a new framework... A new DNA" - Mister star brat, the most powerful kid in the galaxy who even toys with the Reapers but still needs Shep's help for his new solutions.

5) "There is no violation of Nature"...  Not letting any specie naturally evolve the way it should and forcing an artificial "enhancement" is indeed no violation at all. Makes sense. And I'm the mentally deficient one...

6) As I previously said "Wow". I'm glad you're not at some important governemental position (how could you anyway). There were some guys who thought exactly like that in the beginning of the past century. Recall them?


Just for information

Definition of Catalyst:
"One that precipitates a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences".

Star Brat aka the Catalyst : ""The Crucible changed me, created new....possibilities". Still want me to believe him?

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 21 mai 2012 - 08:57 .

[Ieldra]

@Uncle Jo:
1. I have admitted that the forced change is a problem. However, I will not admit that the answer "it is not justified" is a foregone conclusion, given the situation we find ourselves in at the end of the game.

2. If you disagree that choosing Synthesis stops the Reaper, you are contradicting what the game tells you at the end: "Shepard has become a legend by stopping the Reaper threat".

3. I had chosen the term "hint" specifically because I do not believe it can actually be reached. Not by Synthesis, nor by any other means. Besides, that was more than a month ago. I would not describe things in the same way now. That's why I made a new thread instead of expanding the old one.

3a. As I have explained, Synthesis cannot be a literal genetic rewrite. The changes in organics are not realized by genetic change, but by synthetic symbionts (or cybernetics), in synthetics by software upgrades. The sentence you quoted makes no statement about how the acquired traits are realized. There is no "change at the molecular level".

4. *sigh* It is not a genetic rewrite. It does nothing with genes. Combining synthetics and organics does not require changing any genes. Read my OP again, where I have explained why. The "new...DNA" is a metaphor. Nothing I have proposed changes any genes. You're putting a strawman up for attack.

5. Depends on your definition of "natural". If by "natural" you mean "untouched by the human hand", please explain to me why such a state is inherently preferable to the alternative? I can tell you I have certain biological traits I would change at once if I could - and I'm sure 99% of all humans would think the same if I explained what it was.

6. It is a matter of perspective. Perhaps you cannot believe that I would rather live in a post-Synthesis world even if I had no idea of the exact changes coming and no way to opt out, as long as I could be reasonably sure the intent was beneficial. I'd be prepared to jump into the unknown.

[Taboo]

 
I do enjoy these discussions, regardless of how pissy I may sound. They are far more stimulating then the endless Walter/Hudson hate threads. 

But we will admit that Synthesis creates a level of understanding between Synthetics and Organics? Wouldn't that require a change in the brain and the Synthetic equivalent?

You force people to be equals.  The authoratarion overtones are what bothers me more than anything.

Marx believed that everything was related to class struggle and that by making everyone equal would be rid of this. As it turns out we can't do that in the real world. People are just ***holes. 

Although it isn't the same, I would consider the attempt at making people the same the ultimate goal.

The problem is, is that like Lenin and Stalin, the only way to enforce such things in an authoritarian manner. Synthesis is not the same of course (we are not brutally supressing people with Synthesis). But it IS forced upon all organics and Synthetics.

I just simply.......don't think that's ethical.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 21 mai 2012 - 09:47 .

[Ieldra]

Vlta wrote...
If you were giving power on that scale you could have simply eradicated the Reapers and called it a day.

What if I don't want to eradicate the Reapers if I have an alternative? One Reaper is "billions of organic minds, uploaded and conjoined...." Killing the geth pales into insignificance before such a multiple genocide. I would be destroying the legacy of organic life in the galaxy of the last 40 million year at the very least.

Fortunately, the ending provides me with two acceptable alternatives.

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Vlta wrote...
If you were giving power on that scale you could have simply eradicated the Reapers and called it a day.

What if I don't want to eradicate the Reapers if I have an alternative? One Reaper is "billions of organic minds, uploaded and conjoined...." Killing the geth pales into insignificance before such a multiple genocide. I would be destroying the legacy of organic life in the galaxy of the last 40 million year at the very least.

Fortunately, the ending provides me with two acceptable alternatives.

I can see your point, much like destroying a library....

But how is the Reaper destroyed? From what it looks like in the cinematic it's like an overload. By shooting the tube you overload the circuts, or something (I have zero knowledge of such electronics).

 If it is Synthetic can we not retrieve the data, like from the Geth?

Or would we be trying to retrieve something from goo?

We have no knowledge of what the Reaper looks like without it's......carapice correct?

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 21 mai 2012 - 09:54 .

[PsyrenY]

MissNet wrote...

Looks like Mass Effect X Mein kampf crossover. Not a big fan of fanfiction anyway.

I know it's futile to ask, but could you Godwin folks come up with something fresh? Hitler is so 40s, you know?

[Ieldra]

@Taboo-XX:
It's getting late here, so I'll have to reply to the other stuff tomorrow. But yes, you have a point, there are authoritarian overtones in Synthesis. Or perhaps use a slightly less negative term - paternalistic. Making such a change is that.  Don't think that I like that fact. That's why my interpretation - in part IV.2 where I don't try draw conclusions but just speculate about a particularly nice variant - says that with one exception, Synthesis provides the tools for self-improvement with that synthetic symbiont, not any specific improvements themselves. You can still choose not to use them, and they are malleable. It might even be possible to reverse the change on an individual basis. This would not invalidate Synthesis as a solution since the dropout of a few million organics would hardly count for the future of life in the galaxy.

And yes, there is no guarantee that things will look that "nice". It could be quite a bit more authoritarian, actually, and make people more "the same" than I'd be comfortable with. But I see no reason why it should. There is no reason to change the way people think because the way people think is not what prevents organic extinction. It's just power dynamics - putting people on a level where they can compete with post-singularity synthetics. People will change as a result of having synthetic symbionts and being able to link up with each other like the geth, yes, but no one will be forced to think in a specific way. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 21 mai 2012 - 10:25 .

[Taboo]

Optimystic_X wrote...

MissNet wrote...

Looks like Mass Effect X Mein kampf crossover. Not a big fan of fanfiction anyway.

I know it's futile to ask, but could you Godwin folks come up with something fresh? Hitler is so 40s, you know?

We could use anyone with severe enough authoritarian underpinnings actually.

Stalin is just bad.

As is Mao.

Both were leftist authoritarians who suppressed dissent.

Synthesis is not the same of course, but the authoratarian nature of it is.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 21 mai 2012 - 10:14 .

[PsyrenY]

Taboo-XX wrote...

We could use anyone with severe enough authoritarian underpinnings actually.

Then for God's sake I hope they do. Just to shake things up.

I mean, it's no less a fallacy, but at least then we wouldn't have people inserting random **** references and feeling so smug about it. "It's like Mein Kampf fanfiction! Hitler wrote a book with that name, did you know? Damn, I'm so witty."

[antares_sublight]

No response to my questions?

So then... what do these "symbiotic nanite clusters" do in plant life, viruses and bacteria do? What's the purpose of them being "inert"? Will they activate when these life forms evolve intelligence? How intelligent are these nanites? How much control do these parasitic things over their host?

And seeing as how the trees in the ending are glowing, I don't see much "inertness" there.

How do these nanites taste? Do they make food crunchy, more difficult to cook? What will happen to the natural decay method? Do the nanites die as well and decay? Does hybrid fungus consume synthetic material now as well?

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Taboo-XX:

And yes, there is no guarantee that things will look that "nice". It could be quite a bit more authoritarian, actually, and make people more the same than I'd be comfortable with. But as opposed to the interpretations in the previous sections of the OP, we have no information on such details. As I have admitted in my OP, in part IV.2 I have just chosen a variant I like which is compatible with the scenario outlined in the sections before. As long as there is no canonical interpretation I am fully justified in doing that - in fact, the ending calls me to do that, to spin the story along. I do not think, however, that a particularly bad outcome is in the spirit of the Synthesis option. Just as I don't think "Shepard uses the Reapers to continue the cycle" is in the spirit of Control, even though it's a possible outcome.

That's the issue we have at hand more than anything. All interpretations (other than the hyperbolic one that says everyone turns into husks) would technically be correct. It's a frustrating outcome, at least for me because the presentation is so incredibly poor at this time. You've elected to see it as something like an implant, or something to the effect of a transhumanist wet dream (sorry I couldn't think of something more appropriate).

How is it imposed? Nano bots? I have no idea. The amount needed to do such a thing would be enormous. I've not read theories upon such things but I would think that such a thing would be......removable but at what cost? Have we considered the removal of such things to be detrimental? Is it like a skin weave? I see the skin surface and retinas affected,that would mean that something is involved at least on a small biological level and isn't topical. Would it be like removing non-harmful bacteria with hand sanitizer? How do we know that the nano bots won't simply re-synthesize the being?

I don't see it as something like a synthetic arm, as in Deus Ex, I see it as something far more advanced. This isn't an arm that we can detach from the socket and replace with a new one correct ?

Furthermore what proof do we have that it will affect all species in the same manner? Shepard's essence creates the Synthesis. If we assume that it uses his DNA to begin the transformation wouldn't the nanites inside have a bit of a problem with say.........Turians? Are they non discriminatory?

[Taboo]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

We could use anyone with severe enough authoritarian underpinnings actually.

Then for God's sake I hope they do. Just to shake things up.

I mean, it's no less a fallacy, but at least then we wouldn't have people inserting random **** references and feeling so smug about it. "It's like Mein Kampf fanfiction! Hitler wrote a book with that name, did you know? Damn, I'm so witty."

The authritarian nature is not the fallacy here, the application of the people is. 

Synthesis is not the Mass Effect equivalent of Mao's great step forward or Hitler's Final Solution ladies and gentlemen.

To enforce something on someone on such a large scale IS authoratarian but not in the same way.

[antares_sublight]

Taboo-XX wrote...
I see the skin surface and retinas affected,that would mean that something is involved at least on a small biological level and isn't topical.

Good point. The same goes for the trees.

[Uncle Jo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Uncle Jo:
1. I have admitted that the forced change is a problem. However, I will not admit that the answer "it is not justified" is a foregone conclusion, given the situation we find ourselves in at the end of the game.

2. If you disagree that choosing Synthesis stops the Reaper, you are contradicting what the game tells you at the end: "Shepard has become a legend by stopping the Reaper threat".

3. I had chosen the term "hint" specifically because I do not believe it can actually be reached. Not by Synthesis, nor by any other means. Besides, that was more than a month ago. I would not describe things in the same way now. That's why I made a new thread instead of expanding the old one.

3a. As I have explained, Synthesis cannot be a literal genetic rewrite. The changes in organics are not realized by genetic change, but by synthetic symbionts (or cybernetics), in synthetics by software upgrades. The sentence you quoted makes no statement about how the acquired traits are realized. There is no "change at the molecular level".

4. *sigh* It is not a genetic rewrite. It does nothing with genes. Combining synthetics and organics does not require changing any genes. Read my OP again, where I have explained why. The "new...DNA" is a metaphor. Nothing I have proposed changes any genes. You're putting a strawman up for attack.

5. Depends on your definition of "natural". If by "natural" you mean "untouched by the human hand", please explain to me why such a state is inherently preferable to the alternative? I can tell you I have certain biological traits I would change at once if I could - and I'm sure 99% of all humans would think the same if I explained what it was.

6. It is a matter of perspective. Perhaps you cannot believe that I would rather live in a post-Synthesis world even if I had no idea of the exact changes coming and no way to opt out, as long as I could be reasonably sure the intent was beneficial. I'd be prepared to jump into the unknown.

1) I think there is nothing more to add.

2) Ah... The message after the Stargazer, that huge slap in the face of the player... Well don't you think that alone gathering and unifying all the races in the galaxy to face the most terrifying threat the Galaxy ever known, is already... legendary ?


Choosing Synthesis will make Shep becomes the most hated being in the long, long history of the Galaxy. Legendary.

Choose Control and you'll be known as "the greatest "Benedict Arnold of history" (this expression is from a friend of mine. And like I said I'll never buy that Shep is able to control the Reapers. Never). Legendary.

Choose Destroy and you'll be known as the one who kicked the Reaper's *ss (still the Geth are wiped out if ending taken at face value). Legendary.

3) and 4) See 1). Beside space magic, I still don't know how you're gonna achieve it, especially with the synthetics (cybernetic implants/symbionts on synthetics beings. Cool, where's the organic part?)...

5) You can't be serious. How about letting a specie evolute along the million of years, to its own rythm, untouched by whoever's hand, without messing with their [insert the term you find the most convenient] ? Like everyone/everything did since the very beginning the Universe ?

5a) My second "Wow"... Man do you even realize what you're saying? Don't assume for the others. You're really beginning to scare the hell out of me...

6) You're prepared to jump in the unknown (no, you already did). Fine. But do it alone.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 21 mai 2012 - 11:20 .

[Heeden]

The problem here is people are looking at the story from two different perspectives.

One side is looking at a space opera - personally I picked up on references to Dune, Babylon 5, Isaac Asimov and Iain M. Banks amongst others. All are pretty famous for portraying relationships between biological and technological life-forms except Babylon 5 which carried a heavy theme of freedom vs. control with emphasis of younger races in the galactic community wanting to be free of influence from the older.

With this in mind the choices mirror those at the end of the Foundation series between freedom, control or harmony. In this book the "harmony" option is the creation of a galactic "super-organism" - I've already mentioned on page 5 how I would see this taking place in Mass Effect and the in-game lore that suggests how it is both feasible and desirable.

The other view is one of a Lovecraftian nightmare of insanity and doom where the one ray of hope is actually an inscrutable joke by a deranged god who has you completely in his thrall. I'm not saying that's wrong, and certainly the C'thulhu shaped space-ships and insidious methods of indoctrination add credence to this view, but once you begin doubting all information you receive you start sliding towards solipsism and everything loses meaning.

[Ieldra]

@antares_sublight.
I don't know. And in most cases I don't need to know. The host must somehow be able to control the nanite clusters. Maybe they can communicate. There are different scenarios possible and I have no way to tell which is more likely. All that is headcanon territory. Does the ME trilogy answer the question how the hell it is possible that asari can read other species' genes?

Actually, I'm not sure that "hybrid plants" was the intention int he first place, and that the image we get isn't just an artifact of the rushed ending as they overlaid the existing image with some pattern instead of doing something more elaborate. There's certainly nothing of the kind suggested in the leaked script version. That's why I'll wait for the EC until I deal with this stuff. Maybe the offending imagery will be gone...

@Taboo_XX
The presence of the nanites might be responsible for the change in the eye color and the skin pattern.

[Ieldra]

@Uncle Jo:
Here is one biological change that I think almost all humans with enough knowledge to know what I'm speaking about would agree is a very good thing: remove the appendix. It has no function at all, it is an evolutionary relic, and it's prone to inflammation.

Biology is a mess, the human body is no well-designed organic machine but the result of a million miniscule patches. Our bones lose minerals in zero-G, our spines are not made for walking upright, our cartilage and our teeth don't regenerate. There's a long list of things that are rather objectively flaws we could do without, without losing functionality in other places. There is no reason at all not to remove those if you can, unless you value "nature untouched by human hands" more than the well-being of actual humans.

@Heeden:
Your alternative interpretation is interesting. Would you care to provide more details? Also, yes, I have explicitly mentioned the conflict between the "horror from beyond" imagery and its increasing subversion by providing more and more information, in section II.2 of the OP. It is as if people don't see the subversion under the weight of the visual presenation. With the end of ME3, the trilogy has left Lovecraftian horror behind. Thankfully.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 21 mai 2012 - 11:01 .

[Taboo]

I'll assume, if just for a moment, that they are nanites.

Let's examine a few select frames here:





This isn't make-up applied to cover a blemish it's an addition to the bodies make up. That's a change. 

I see the dermis and retina grow, that would imply that the effect is a bit deeper than just topical cream. To create such an effect we would have to create some sort of.......cellular construct.  Eye color is determined by multiple genes, with colors such as blue being a mutation. From what I've seen everyone's eyes become green. That would say to me that at least at a basic level, Synthesis provides similar "results" for everyone.

Plants also glow green, as does Joker's hat. I more than willing to dismiss the latter as a design oversight, unless Bioware really intended his hat to gain some semblence of sentience.

You force this change upon people and as we have so witnessed, they retain some semblence of who they are (if we are to take the scene on the jungle planet as literal). But that is still a change. People have the right to give consent, regardless of the isssue I will never enact that upon people.

[Uncle Jo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Uncle Jo:
Here is one biological change that I think almost all humans with enough knowledge to know what I'm speaking about would agree is a very good thing: remove the appendix. It has no function at all, it is an evolutionary relic, and it's prone to inflammation.

Biology is a mess, the human body is no well-designed organic machine but the result of a million miniscule patches. Our bones lose minerals in zero-G, our spines are not made for walking upright, our cartilage and our teeth don't regenerate. There's a long list of things that are rather objectively flaws we could do without, without losing functionality in other places. There is no reason at all not to remove those if you can, unless you value "nature untouched by human hands" more than the well-being of actual humans.

*snip*

You know what man, I humbly agree that we'll never agree. Your logic is more circular than the star brat's.

You're firmly convinced that you can mess with everyone for their greater good, even if the concerned doesn't agree... You want to make us happy even if we don't want to...

I'm sorry but I find your way of thinking extremely dangerous and hope that you'll someday change your mind.

This conversation, although... amusing, is over.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 21 mai 2012 - 11:15 .