9089 réponses à ce sujet

[lillitheris]

Also, f— everything about themes. Life doesn’t have themes.

BUT if you like to view Synthesis as a thematic thing rather than something resembling reality, that works great. I‘m perfectly OK with that.

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...
I'm curious, Ieldra: what's your opinion on the issue of consent in Synthesis? I'm willing to overlook it by reason of it being better than genocide or the possibility of Shepard-as-Catalyst becoming corrupt, but since you have the most brilliant views on Synthesis that I've seen so far, I'm interested in your opinion.

It's a significant problem, but not a crippling one. It's not like I'm sitting at a desk in peacetime with a button in front of me "synthesize everyone". I'm standing at the fulcrum of events where the future of the galaxy hangs in the balance, and the higher the stakes, the less I can let conventional notions of morality deter me from a decision I think is the best for the galaxy. It's the responsibility of a leader to make decisions that give the best overall results. Such decisions are by their natural utilitarian.

Synthesis, while making significant changes, doesn't sound like it would make you any less "you" than you were before. It's more like running on very slightly different hardware more compatible with certain technology you can now naturally integrate. It's not like people lose anything - I count "biochemical purity" as completely insignificant. Perhaps I'm too optimistic, but IMO most people tend to be practical about things which can be useful. Also, the Reapers figure prominently in my assessment of Synthesis. I think if I can make peace with them that's more desirable than the other options, considering what they are.

I'll also say that I can at least understand why some people might think Synthesis wandered in from a different game; ideally, I believe that more musing on Saren's goals and how they compare/contrast with the possibility of Synthesis would have been interesting.

Possibly Saren had ideals that were somewhat like Synthesis. However, he believed being slaves to the Reapers would be an acceptable price. We aren't doing that when we choose Synthesis. In fact, we are saving the Reapers - living avatars of past civilizations - from enslavement by the Catalyst who made them do to others what was done to them. I can understand why people are uncomfortable with Synthesis, but I also think that's the point. You are embracing the unknown in several different ways by making that change and letting the Reapers become part of post-Synthesis civilization. It's supposed to feel uncomfortable. But why should that deter us?

@lillitheris:
Themes are important in stories because they are important to people. Also, if you come with realism, I'll come with FTL, biotics etc...and don't tell me that's irrelevant, because it isn't. The in-world explanation of the mass effect is infamous for making no sense even within its own fictional context. Tell me, if you see something that can't be explained with your knowledge, will you deny it and insist it can't exist? The Synthesis process is of that kind. We are told what the end result will be and we know the device that will achieve it. Would I like to know how? Of course I would, I like SF after all. But I have no grounds for speculation in this case. Would you expect that I deny this fictional reality just because I can't explain it?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 03 juillet 2012 - 08:43 .

[Heeden]

[quote]lillitheris wrote...

Explain “new DNA”, and how a fundamental biological change can leave the organism’s mental functionality unchanged. Or a machine’s for that matter. Explain how the “new level of consciousness” exists while retaining our current level of consciousness.

I’d love to hear your scientific theory on this.[quote]

The effects of Synthesis are additive, not morphic. You stay who you are but have access to new capabilities and new channels for information.

BTW, what's your scientific theory on what eezo is, how it functions, how it can lower the overall mass of a ship whilst simultaneously increasing the mass to create gravity and how lowering the mass of the ship allows it to exceed c? If knowing the exact workings of something is so important to you, you must have a very firm understanding of these to have enjoyed Mass Effect at all.

[Xilizhra]

It's a significant problem, but not a crippling one. It's not like I'm sitting at a desk in peacetime with a button in front of me "synthesize everyone". I'm standing at the fulcrum of events where the future of the galaxy hangs in the balance, and the higher the stakes, the less I can let conventional notions of morality deter me from a decision I think is the best for the galaxy. It's the responsibility of a leader to make decisions that give the best overall results. Such decisions are by their natural utilitarian.

Out of curiosity: would it be considered safer to choose Control and then allow yourself to be deleted via Synthesis later once you have the chance to consider the option some and let the galaxy settle down?

Synthesis, while making significant changes, doesn't sound like it would make you any less "you" than you were before. It's more like running on very slightly different hardware more compatible with certain technology you can now naturally integrate. It's not like people lose anything - I count "biochemical purity" as completely insignificant. Perhaps I'm too optimistic, but IMO most people tend to be practical about things which can be useful. Also, the Reapers figure prominently in my assessment of Synthesis. I think if I can make peace with them that's more desirable than the other options, considering what they are.

Hah. Until now, I never quite realized just how important other people held biochemical purity to be, as though DNA alterations were somehow a greater factor in identity than a continuance of cognitive processes. Though I suspect a lot of it is due to visceral fears of physical violation, which makes me wonder how people would react upon just being hit with it out of nowhere... on the other hand, without anticipation and the accompanying fear that would come with it, it might actually be easier to adapt to if it was instantaneous.
Though I wonder how pre-technological civilizations will deal with this, or newly evolved sapients in the future that didn't take the Synthesis back then because they weren't sufficiently advanced.

[Heeden]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Whether the reapers are alive or not is not something that we can know, my view is that if ... frak it

No they are not, full stop

I feel like u are implying that there is a dilemma for me when destroying the reapers, the reapers, at its core, are synthetics, they added this organic qualities onto themselves as if they are protection: "if you shoot me, u will kill them.", but I am sorry they are already dead, and so will you

So you don't consider synthetic "life" to be life, that is the fundamental difference in our views. I do believe that technology can give rise to a conscious entity every bit as valid as one created by biology.

Harbinger is much more complicated than that, it is no longer the orginal form of life, it is a body of "souls" which belonged to people who are long dead, taking an organic's soul and put it in another body is magic, it is fantasy, a person is not alive without a body

Nothing in science says it is impossible and speculation (from real scientists I mean) suggests it will be achievable, Mass Effect takes the view that it is both possible and already achieved - Shepard himself takes a walk around in the Geth consensus. If you hold the view that "not scientifically proven" = "fantasy" then all of Mass Effect is a fantasy - aliens are a fantasy idea, FTL travel is fantasy, biotics are magic thinly disguised with some techno-babble and not as well worked out as some fantasy magic systems.

The dead from harvested civilisations are not alive until they are resurrected in their original form and have free-will, even if the reapers are freed, the collection of consciousness is still trapped within reapers' hardware

Define "trapped". The electrons moving around in a Reaper are just as real as ones moving around in my brain. Advanced enough virtual reality can give just as rich an experience as actual reality.

If life could be preserved in this way, organic scientists would have been on the subject in no time, uploading a person's consciousness into an USB and plug it into a new body once the person is dead, no one would fear death again

If only it were that simple. Current computers aren't powerful enough to simulate a human mind yet even by the most conservative estimates, and if quantum mechanical processes are part of consciousness we're nowhere near. It may be that a computer system capable of simulating and providing an environment for a sentient being would itself have to be sentient, hence there are none in Citadel-space in the ME game.

[lillitheris]

Xilizhra wrote...

Until now, I never quite realized just how important other people held biochemical purity to be, as though DNA alterations were somehow a greater factor in identity than a continuance of cognitive processes.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m mainly concerned that the DNA alteration prevents continuance of cognitive processes as they were previously.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Tell me, if you see something that can't be explained with your knowledge, will you deny it and insist it can't exist?

No. I just expect you to understand that, and therefore not bumble into it blindly.

Clearly, in the game, Synthesis works somehow. The details are irrelevant. But according to the game itself, the effects are incomprehensible to humans as we are now. You argue that they are.

This is why you do not have the right to choose it for everyone. If it was just you or a bunch of volunteers, perfectly fine. Anyone else, not so.

You do not have the right to invoke such a change when there are more conservative alternatives. It’s not Synthesis or death (in which case the “leap of faith” might be justified).

Now, if you want to ignore this completely, and just pick it because it fits whatever theme you see in the game, that’s fine. But then you can’t compare it to the other options.

[SpectreVeldt]

lillitheris wrote...

You cannot know those implications.

You can, actually.  You are not only told about certain implications, but by elaborating upon given details, via the empirical process, you can form hypotheses and theories (the actual scientific definition of a theory). !

Explain “new DNA”, and how a fundamental biological change can leave the organism’s mental functionality unchanged. Or a machine’s for that matter. Explain how the “new level of consciousness” exists while retaining our current level of consciousness.

I’d love to hear your scientific theory on this.

I can't believe I have to do this.

"A scientific theory[/b] is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy."

Coming up with hypotheses via empirical methodolgy based on observation and certain details and facts, gathering and then presenting evidence to buttress such hypotheses, attempting to question a multitude of aspects to determine validity (and there is more than one kind of validity), attempting to collude with my peers...  All of which you personally chose to ignore either because you simply love employing fallacies or because you lack the ability to understand anything that goes into that much detail.  (My money's on both.)  Additionally, if you don't know the definition of something, don't act like you do because you'll just end up using "delineate" incorrectly again.  You chose to ignore me, and how many others now?  All you're doing is repeating yourself.  When someone tries to offer you EVIDENCE to the contrary, you should be excited!  Like you, a vast majority of the Internet DOES NOT, yet they still try to present their ideas and opinions as fact.  No--you don't care what anyone else is saying.  I actually broke down the implications of "new DNA" by addressing aspects of Synthesis itself.  I try to explain what that implies and signifies, scientifically.  Your problem is that you aren't able to understand this.  You don't understand that I and a few others have actually been answering these questions, even indirectly, or at least trying to.  Your word is law and that's why you will never have an intellectual and analytical debate with anyone but yourself (okay, well, probably not even then); you absolutely refuse to take in what anyone else is saying.

What's even more shocking is just how many people you've managed to pull this on.  I mean...at least five people at once--all saying different things--different arguments.  And yet...you have exactly one argument that somehow is the answer to all of them.  And then manipulating the subject matter and language to employ multiple strawman fallacies.  We call that: repeating yourself till insane.  Just because you talk louder does not mean your argument is more valid.  Just because you are able to type and are on a forum in a topic that encourages debate does not mean you are actually debating.  Debating implies utilization of logic and the empirical process (something which you actually attacked btw); no--you are arguing.  And I have lost count the number of logical fallacies you have employed in your 'arguments.'

I also really hope you one day learn how public online discussion threads work.

And I hope you one day learn how analytical debate works, just so you can go back to all of your comments and experience a massive Facepalm.  But can't have everything, I suppose.  In the meantime, part of being a part of "public online discussion threads" is experiencing responses like mine.

[Shaigunjoe]

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Tell me, if you see something that can't be explained with your knowledge, will you deny it and insist it can't exist?

No. I just expect you to understand that, and therefore not bumble into it blindly.

Clearly, in the game, Synthesis works somehow. The details are irrelevant. But according to the game itself, the effects are incomprehensible to humans as we are now. You argue that they are.

This is why you do not have the right to choose it for everyone. If it was just you or a bunch of volunteers, perfectly fine. Anyone else, not so.

You do not have the right to invoke such a change when there are more conservative alternatives. It’s not Synthesis or death (in which case the “leap of faith” might be justified).

Now, if you want to ignore this completely, and just pick it because it fits whatever theme you see in the game, that’s fine. But then you can’t compare it to the other options.

That's silly, whats wrong with a thematic debate on all three options?  It certainly is funny how you like to decide for people what they can or can not do

[Shaigunjoe]

lillitheris wrote...

Also, f— everything about themes. Life doesn’t have themes.

BUT if you like to view Synthesis as a thematic thing rather than something resembling reality, that works great. I‘m perfectly OK with that.

Ah, yet fiction does, I think I understand you a little bit more.  I think you take escapism way way to far.

[lillitheris]

SpectreVeldt wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

You cannot know those implications.

You can, actually.  You are not only told about certain implications, but by elaborating upon given details, via the empirical process, you can form hypotheses and theories (the actual scientific definition of a theory). !

Explain “new DNA”, and how a fundamental biological change can leave the organism’s mental functionality unchanged. Or a machine’s for that matter. Explain how the “new level of consciousness” exists while retaining our current level of consciousness.

I’d love to hear your scientific theory on this.

I can't believe I have to do this.

"A scientific theory[/b] is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy."

Hey, you were the one who said “You are not only told about certain implications, but by elaborating upon given details, via the empirical process, you can form hypotheses
and theories (the actual scientific definition of a theory).”

Coming up with hypotheses via empirical methodolgy based on observation and certain details and facts, gathering and then presenting evidence to buttress such hypotheses, attempting to question a multitude of aspects to determine validity (and there is more than one kind of validity), attempting to collude with my peers...  All of which you personally chose to ignore either because you simply love employing fallacies or because you lack the ability to understand anything that goes into that much detail.  (My money's on both.)

Oh, wow, that are many words that is big…but no actual explanation.

I’m not sure why it’s hard to understand that I don’t care how or if Synthesis actually would work. It wouldn’t, but that’s beside the point. You have other people to argue about that with.

When someone tries to offer you EVIDENCE to the contrary, you should be excited!

Where’s my explanation and the evidence I presume you have for it?

I actually broke down the implications of "new DNA" by addressing aspects of Synthesis itself.  I try to explain what that implies and signifies, scientifically.

Can you link to this post, or remember the page it was on? All I want is that you provide me a comprehensible framework of this new level of consciousness (which by definition isn’t comprehensible, but go ahead). Or is this just a handwave of ‘empiricism’ again (which, again, is by definition not possible until after the fact)?

1. You cannot, by definition, comprehend how Synthesis works and its implications until it has been enacted.

2. Because of #1, you are incapable of making an educated decision on its benefits ahead of time.

3. Because of #2, you do not have the right to force this change on everyone when more conservative options exist.

(4. You don’t really have the right even if you did know, but at least then you could justify the means with the end.)

That’s all I’m saying. I have no interest in your hypotheses about what Synthesis could perhaps be.

If the above problem statement is unimportant to you, please just ignore it, and continue talking with all these other people about your hypotheses.

Modifié par lillitheris, 03 juillet 2012 - 10:45 .

[lillitheris]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Also, f— everything about themes. Life doesn’t have themes.

BUT if you like to view Synthesis as a thematic thing rather than something resembling reality, that works great. I‘m perfectly OK with that.

Ah, yet fiction does, I think I understand you a little bit more.  I think you take escapism way way to far.

Fiction may. And petty insults aside, if you do understand that my problem deals precisely with the role-playing decision, that’s wonderful.

That's silly, whats wrong with a thematic debate on all three options? 
It certainly is funny how you like to decide for people what they can or
can not do

You’re welcome to engage in a thematic debate (although you should clearly state so if you do).

That is not, however, the situation that your Commander Shepard faces: he or she has a ‘real’ situation at hand, and can’t take anything like ‘themes’ into account. For this reason, I am uninterested in exploring those. Literary critique is a different ballgame.

Modifié par lillitheris, 03 juillet 2012 - 10:50 .

[Shaigunjoe]

lillitheris wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Also, f— everything about themes. Life doesn’t have themes.

BUT if you like to view Synthesis as a thematic thing rather than something resembling reality, that works great. I‘m perfectly OK with that.

Ah, yet fiction does, I think I understand you a little bit more.  I think you take escapism way way to far.

Fiction may. And petty insults aside, if you do understand that my problem deals precisely with the role-playing decision, that’s wonderful.

Well, your horrible analogy made it difficult to see exactly what your problem is.  In addition your out right assertion that themes of the choices should not be discussed along side each other makes it appear your agenda is more than just the role playing aspect.

[lillitheris]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Well, your horrible analogy made it difficult to see exactly what your problem is.  In addition your out right assertion that themes of the choices should not be discussed along side each other makes it appear your agenda is more than just the role playing aspect.

I’m sorry if it was confusing. I thought my position was exceedingly clear, but perhaps I was counting on implicit information since it was established some time ago.

I do believe, however, that your perception of the argument was somehow colored, too: I did not, for example, at any point say that the themes of the choices could not be compared to eachother. I said that you cannot compare a thematic take on Synthesis to realistic (or RP) takes on the other options (and furthermore that I was uninterested in themes for the purposes of this discussion, for various reasons).

Edit: in fact, let me simply state that I’m uninterested in a thematic debate because it is fundamentally ungrounded. Such a debate can be very interesting and eye-opening, in general. In the case of Synthesis, I feel it has no such potential.

Modifié par lillitheris, 03 juillet 2012 - 11:05 .

[Heeden]

lillitheris wrote...

Clearly, in the game, Synthesis works somehow. The details are irrelevant. But according to the game itself, the effects are incomprehensible to humans as we are now. You argue that they are.

Synthesis is not described as incomprehensible, EDI is referring to the "beyond mortality" state which life in the galaxy may pursue after being synthesised.

You do not have the right to invoke such a change when there are more conservative alternatives. It’s not Synthesis or death (in which case the “leap of faith” might be justified).

I do not agree that the alternatives are more conservative. Destroy and Control are both atrocious in their own ways; genocide and enslavement have been my two greatest enemies in the game. On purely moral grounds Synthesis is by far the most appealing choice to me. In fact Refuse is, from a purely ethical stand-point, superior to Destroy and Control, arguably to Synthesis to.

[SpectreVeldt]

[quote]lillitheris wrote...
[quote]SpectreVeldt wrote...
[quote]lillitheris wrote...I’d love to hear your scientific theory on this.[/quote]
I can't believe I have to do this.
"A scientific theory[/b] is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been . . . [/quote]
Hey, you were the one who said “You are not only told about certain implications, but by elaborating upon given details, via the empirical process, you can form hypotheses and theories (the actual scientific definition of a theory).”[/quote]Holy non sequitur.  You were the one who asked me.  Lol.
[quote]Oh, wow, that are many words that is big…but no actual explanation.[/quote]Actually, you didn't know the definition of a scientific theory, so I defined it for you, then told you how it applied to what I and others have been doing/trying to do.

[quote]I’m not sure why it’s hard to understand that I don’t care how or if Synthesis actually would work. It wouldn’t, but that’s beside the point. You have other people to argue about that with.[/quote]And the funny keeps on coming, as that is not even near anything to what I have ever discussed, in this thread or any other.
[quote]Where’s my explanation and the evidence I presume you have for it?[/quote]Well, I have mentioned it repeatedly, but as I recall, your response was to belittle me and then deem my posts and topics unworthy of reading.
[quote]Can you link to this post, or remember the page it was on?[/quote]I did.  I even put it in my friggin sig.
[quote]All I want is that you provide me a comprehensible framework of this new level of consciousness (which by definition isn’t comprehensible, but go ahead).[/quote]You are using this specific phrase to basically state what SithDuke, I, and some others keep saying.  We are specifically talking about how we can actually better understand the ending.  Here's the kicker: by better understanding all or many aspects of the ending, in an indirect way, we can also understand "this new level of consciousness."  By educating ourselves on things like what we may lose from 'merging,' we can understand or redefine what's happened.  In layman's terms: definition of "a new level of consciousness" includes A, B, and C.  After Synthesis, we have lost the ability of A.  What does this now mean for our "level of consciousness"?  Which, btw... I find a kind of poor choice of words.  Why don't you define what our old level of consciousness was?  You have to do and understand that first, before asking about the "new level" to illustrate understanding with the knowledge to tell the difference.

[quote]2. Because of #1, you are incapable of making an educated decision on its benefits ahead of time.[/quote]We do this all the time, btw, throughout our history.  Feel free to read my thread again on how we can make an educated decision.  Or, actually, just Google: 'making educated decisions.'  "On its benefits" is a given; that is the sole reason we make educated decisions.  Nobody makes educated decisions for negative effects--we do it to avoid them (i.e., "benefits").

[quote]3. Because of #2, you do not have the right to force this change on everyone when more conservative options exist.(4. You don’t really have the right even if you did know, but at least then you could justify the means with the end.)[/quote]You're doing that strawman thing again.  The other dudes and I were not talking about this.

As Shaigunjoe put it nicely when responding to one of your comments:
[quote]Shaigunjoe wrote...
That's silly, whats wrong with a thematic debate on all three options?  It certainly is funny how you like to decide for people what they can or can not do[/quote][quote]lillitheris wrote...
That’s all I’m saying. I have no interest in your hypotheses about what Synthesis could perhaps be.[/quote]
You said it, Shaigunjoe!  And btw, doing the aforementioned would help answer your question about making an educated decision.  Which you recognize for half of your post, then come back and contradict even yourself!  That's a new one.

Modifié par SpectreVeldt, 04 juillet 2012 - 04:26 .

[Vigilant111]

Heeden wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Whether the reapers are alive or not is not something that we can know, my view is that if ... frak it

No they are not, full stop

I feel like u are implying that there is a dilemma for me when destroying the reapers, the reapers, at its core, are synthetics, they added this organic qualities onto themselves as if they are protection: "if you shoot me, u will kill them.", but I am sorry they are already dead, and so will you

So you don't consider synthetic "life" to be life, that is the fundamental difference in our views. I do believe that technology can give rise to a conscious entity every bit as valid as one created by biology.

Harbinger is much more complicated than that, it is no longer the orginal form of life, it is a body of "souls" which belonged to people who are long dead, taking an organic's soul and put it in another body is magic, it is fantasy, a person is not alive without a body

Nothing in science says it is impossible and speculation (from real scientists I mean) suggests it will be achievable, Mass Effect takes the view that it is both possible and already achieved - Shepard himself takes a walk around in the Geth consensus. If you hold the view that "not scientifically proven" = "fantasy" then all of Mass Effect is a fantasy - aliens are a fantasy idea, FTL travel is fantasy, biotics are magic thinly disguised with some techno-babble and not as well worked out as some fantasy magic systems.

The dead from harvested civilisations are not alive until they are resurrected in their original form and have free-will, even if the reapers are freed, the collection of consciousness is still trapped within reapers' hardware

Define "trapped". The electrons moving around in a Reaper are just as real as ones moving around in my brain. Advanced enough virtual reality can give just as rich an experience as actual reality.

If life could be preserved in this way, organic scientists would have been on the subject in no time, uploading a person's consciousness into an USB and plug it into a new body once the person is dead, no one would fear death again

If only it were that simple. Current computers aren't powerful enough to simulate a human mind yet even by the most conservative estimates, and if quantum mechanical processes are part of consciousness we're nowhere near. It may be that a computer system capable of simulating and providing an environment for a sentient being would itself have to be sentient, hence there are none in Citadel-space in the ME game.

Hey I am not disputing that, why do u keep putting words in my mouth? I said the REAPERS are not alive, not just any synthetic life, the reapers have no free will, they are controlled by the Catalyst and have no individuality, even if they embody so many "souls". The Geth and EDI are different, they can self-modify, can break away from "evil"

That is called a virtual world, that is not living by organic terms, that is synthetic's way of life

Electrons? are u saying that electrons are alive? are proteins alive? they are only active agents, the "souls" will become untrapped only if they are restored in the original form

I suggest that the only thing the reapers achieved was "ascending" to a synthetic hardware, it is forceful, and it is vague, and by no means guarantee that the consiousness is still living. The person that was ascended will no longer entitled to enjoy the luxuries of life, the experience of touching a car engine is "real" within a virtual world, but it is NOT real. If everyone thought that leaving their fleshy bodies behind is a good idea, why didn't they just welcome the reapers and let them do their job? That is exactly what death means for an organic, u kept saying there are "souls" embodied inside the reaper, yet none of these souls appealed to u throughout the game, ever

This is coming from an organic's perspective, and it doesn't matter what the Catalyst thinks or what any synthetic thinks what is the best for organic future, they are entitled to their opinion, but they are not entitled of killing

EDIT: my point is not that synthetics are not alive, but that synthetic life and organic life are fundamentally different, u cannot just simply force some kind of merge when the two components are not designed for that

Modifié par Vigilant111, 04 juillet 2012 - 06:33 .

[lillitheris]

Heeden wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Clearly, in the game, Synthesis works somehow. The details are irrelevant. But according to the game itself, the effects are incomprehensible to humans as we are now. You argue that they are.

Synthesis is not described as incomprehensible, EDI is referring to the "beyond mortality" state which life in the galaxy may pursue after being synthesised.

You do not have the right to invoke such a change when there are more conservative alternatives. It’s not Synthesis or death (in which case the “leap of faith” might be justified).

I do not agree that the alternatives are more conservative. Destroy and Control are both atrocious in their own ways; genocide and enslavement have been my two greatest enemies in the game.

By sheer numbers, they are. Neither is a great option if you consider the worst outcomes. I do not subscribe to the reapers as gestalt consciousness theory, but even if you do, there‘s the factor that either they were already enslaved, or then they genuinely thought genocide was a fantastic idea. In either case, prolonging it until you have the time to understand the situation and not fumble around blindly does not negatively impact their existence. (In either case, it seems that at best you would be reconstituting people, not keeping them alive. That’s a huge difference.)

Control will still allow for Synthesis at a later time, or a different means to free the enslaved. ShepardAI is modeled after you, so maybe it would even work to liberate the trapped minds. Who knows — we just assume the worst for the balance.

I think Mordin was quite right when he said that the scale of the galaxy is too big to understand. I still feel as though the sheer magnitude of enslavement that you’re doing when you select Synthesis is escaping most people arguing in favor.

On purely moral grounds Synthesis is by far the most appealing choice to me. In fact Refuse is, from a purely ethical stand-point, superior to Destroy and Control, arguably to Synthesis to.

Refuse seems the worst possible option, really. You’re dooming this cycle — and possibly countless cycles thereafter — to a terrible war that will end in their deaths. There are no redeeming qualities to it.

Modifié par lillitheris, 04 juillet 2012 - 09:35 .

[lillitheris]

SpectreVeldt wrote...

Thanks for the link. I assumed you meant something in this thread rather than the topic you said you were setting up in opposition to Synthesis. I looked over your OP there, but you offer no explanation.

Now, I’m going to ask you to take a breather, and try to understand the argument I am making. You clearly currently do not, and are misinterpreting the scope and components. Whether that is my fault, yours, or both of us I don‘t know, but the end result is the same.

All I want is that you provide me a comprehensible framework of this new level of consciousness (which by definition isn’t comprehensible, but go ahead).

You are using this specific phrase to basically state what SithDuke, I, and some others keep saying.  We are specifically talking about how we can actually better understand the ending.  Here's the kicker: by better understanding all or many aspects of the ending, in an indirect way, we can also understand "this new level of consciousness."  By educating ourselves on things like what we may lose from 'merging,' we can understand or redefine what's happened.  In layman's terms: definition of "a new level of consciousness" includes A, B, and C.  After Synthesis, we have lost the ability of A.  What does this now mean for our "level of consciousness"?  Which, btw... I find a kind of poor choice of words.  Why don't you define what our old level of consciousness was?  You have to do and understand that first, before asking about the "new level" to illustrate understanding with the knowledge to tell the difference.

So this is the fundamental problem. You say that you’re trying to better understand the ending (by which I assume you mean Synthesis in this case), or working toward it. That’s perfectly fine, you’re welcome to do that. I’ve done so, and found that there is no rational explanation. But please continue, maybe you’ll be luckier.

Now, as things stand, none of you actually has explained how it all works, to any level of plausibility. This is not a matter of opinion. Nobody has done so. There are a few theories — Ieldra2 has done a good job gathering and authoring them — but none of them explain the situation fully, and most of them do not fall in the parameters presented by the Catalyst. They all also skip over certain parts that are impossible to explain with anything but the equivalent of magic. In fact, Ieldra2 and most of the others admit that parts cannot be explained. This is, if you will, empirical evidence that Synthesis is unfathomable.

Furthermore, the game makes it clear that it’s not possible to understand it, that it is a leap of faith. It’s like a dog trying to be a human. It simply does not possess the capability to reason in the manner required.

So, this leaves me with a very specific problem. From a role-playing perspective, Shepard is in a position where the effects and implications of Synthesis are not merely unpredictable to any degree, but actively something that Shepard cannot begin to understand.

This is why it is morally wrong to make this choice on behalf of everyone, to force everyone into this change. You might do it anyway, of course, but you can‘t even say that the ends justify the means, because you don’t actually know what the ends are. It might turn out for the best, but it’s still wrong to make that choice when alternatives exist.

It would not be morally wrong for Shepard to make the choice just for themselves, or only for persons who volunteer for it, but this is not the scenario we have. There are no volunteers.

…

And, once again, you and whoever you’re talking to are welcome to keep talking about what Synthesis might mean, and how it might work. I am not interested in that, unless you come up with something that is agreed to be solid more or less universally, and in perfect concert with the information given in the game. Let me know if you do.

You’re welcome to talk about how themes might or might not apply. I’m not interested in that, either.

If you are not interested in the moral problem I pose, then you need not partake.

[Heeden]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Hey I am not disputing that, why do u keep putting words in my mouth? I said the REAPERS are not alive, not just any synthetic life, the reapers have no free will, they are controlled by the Catalyst and have no individuality, even if they embody so many "souls". The Geth and EDI are different, they can self-modify, can break away from "evil"

That is called a virtual world, that is not living by organic terms, that is synthetic's way of life

It's still life, it's still a sentient entity capable of experience, and you have the option of allowing it to be free. I accepted the Geth as living beings before Legion's ascension and I accepted EDI before she was unshackled.

Electrons? are u saying that electrons are alive? are proteins alive? they are only active agents, the "souls" will become untrapped only if they are restored in the original form

Please fully explain the mechanisms of consciousness so I can understand why you are so adamant it can not continue to exist in virtual form.

[Vigilant111]

Heeden wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Hey I am not disputing that, why do u keep putting words in my mouth? I said the REAPERS are not alive, not just any synthetic life, the reapers have no free will, they are controlled by the Catalyst and have no individuality, even if they embody so many "souls". The Geth and EDI are different, they can self-modify, can break away from "evil"

That is called a virtual world, that is not living by organic terms, that is synthetic's way of life

It's still life, it's still a sentient entity capable of experience, and you have the option of allowing it to be free. I accepted the Geth as living beings before Legion's ascension and I accepted EDI before she was unshackled.

Electrons? are u saying that electrons are alive? are proteins alive? they are only active agents, the "souls" will become untrapped only if they are restored in the original form

Please fully explain the mechanisms of consciousness so I can understand why you are so adamant it can not continue to exist in virtual form.

For an organic to be conscious, it needs a body, a person that is brain dead, he / she is not conscious, a person without a body is dead, have to have bodily functions to be alive

Modifié par Vigilant111, 04 juillet 2012 - 10:28 .

[Heeden]

[quote]lillitheris wrote...

By sheer numbers, they are. Neither is a great option if you consider the worst outcomes. I do not subscribe to the reapers as gestalt consciousness theory, but even if you do, there‘s the factor that either they were already enslaved, or then they genuinely thought genocide was a fantastic idea. In either case, prolonging it until you have the time to understand the situation and not fumble around blindly does not negatively impact their existence. (In either case, it seems that at best you would be reconstituting people, not keeping them alive. That’s a huge difference.)[/quote]

Killing and Enslavement will always be abhorent to me, because I rank the rights of sentient beings higher than the right for people not to receive presents.

[quote]Control will still allow for Synthesis at a later time, or a different means to free the enslaved. ShepardAI is modeled after you, so maybe it would even work to liberate the trapped minds. Who knows — we just assume the worst for the balance.[/quote]

Perhaps, if you imagine a scenario where that is possible it could be done (but then you are imagining consequences to use as an argument, something you asked us to avoid) or your ShepAI given the perspective of the Reapers may just continue the Harvest, or the fact that control of the galaxy now rests with an authoritarian super-being may mean the conditions for Synthesis are never achieved again.

I think Mordin was quite right when he said that the scale of the galaxy is too big to understand. I still feel as though the sheer magnitude of enslavement that you’re doing when you select Synthesis is escaping most people arguing in favor.[/quote]

Please explain how the Catalyst's words lead you to conclude Synthesis = enslavement.

[quote]Refuse seems the worst possible option, really. You’re dooming this cycle — and possibly countless cycles thereafter — to a terrible war that will end in their deaths. There are no redeeming qualities to it.
[/quote]

Except on purely moral grounds, without imagining the consequences (which you asked us to ignore as fundamentally unknowable from an RP perspective) Refuse is the most conservative, effects the least people and therefore by your logic is the best option.

[Heeden]

Vigilant111 wrote...

For an organic to be conscious, it needs a body, a person that is brain dead, he / she is not conscious, a person without a body is dead, have to have bodily functions to be alive

That's a ridiculously simple notion of consciousness, I don't think there's much point discussing the existential quandaries of existence as an AI construct if your best idea is "consciousness = has a body".

[Vigilant111]

Heeden wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

For an organic to be conscious, it needs a body, a person that is brain dead, he / she is not conscious, a person without a body is dead, have to have bodily functions to be alive

That's a ridiculously simple notion of consciousness, I don't think there's much point discussing the existential quandaries of existence as an AI construct if your best idea is "consciousness = has a body".

ORGANIC LIFE!!! NOT SYNTHETIC LIFE!!! THEY ARE TOO DIFFERENT!!!

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...

It's a significant problem, but not a crippling one. It's not like I'm sitting at a desk in peacetime with a button in front of me "synthesize everyone". I'm standing at the fulcrum of events where the future of the galaxy hangs in the balance, and the higher the stakes, the less I can let conventional notions of morality deter me from a decision I think is the best for the galaxy. It's the responsibility of a leader to make decisions that give the best overall results. Such decisions are by their natural utilitarian.

Out of curiosity: would it be considered safer to choose Control and then allow yourself to be deleted via Synthesis later once you have the chance to consider the option some and let the galaxy settle down?

Possibly, though that might not work because Control!Shepard isn't what she was before. They'd need to find another person for the required "personality dissemination". As I see it, the chance is there now and won't come again for a considerable length of time.

 

Synthesis, while making significant changes, doesn't sound like it would make you any less "you" than you were before. It's more like running on very slightly different hardware more compatible with certain technology you can now naturally integrate. It's not like people lose anything - I count "biochemical purity" as completely insignificant. Perhaps I'm too optimistic, but IMO most people tend to be practical about things which can be useful. Also, the Reapers figure prominently in my assessment of Synthesis. I think if I can make peace with them that's more desirable than the other options, considering what they are.

Hah. Until now, I never quite realized just how important other people held biochemical purity to be, as though DNA alterations were somehow a greater factor in identity than a continuance of cognitive processes. Though I suspect a lot of it is due to visceral fears of physical violation, which makes me wonder how people would react upon just being hit with it out of nowhere... on the other hand, without anticipation and the accompanying fear that would come with it, it might actually be easier to adapt to if it was instantaneous.

Yep, that's what I meant when I said people tend to be practical about things, especially if they come with something useful.

Though I wonder how pre-technological civilizations will deal with this, or newly evolved sapients in the future that didn't take the Synthesis back then because they weren't sufficiently advanced.

That would depend on the exact effects. Those mindlinks to the preserved civilizations can't be permanent anyway, I think there would have to be some sort of non-interference "prime directive", active until a time when a civilization develops technology that can be integrated. Any other effects they'll have to live with - probably it will some time until people realize what has changed, and the emergence of mental networking in a culture would certainly be interesting to study.