9089 réponses à ce sujet

[lillitheris]

Heeden wrote...

Except on purely moral grounds, without imagining the consequences (which you asked us to ignore as fundamentally unknowable from an RP perspective)

No. I said actual consequences are irrelevant. For example, you can’t say that choosing Synthesis is morally right because you see that the actual consequences are good (in the epilogue, for some value of good). The actual consequences are not factors in the decision, because they have not happened yet.

Refuse is the most conservative, effects the least people and therefore by your logic is the best option.

No, it can affect the most. (Not only this cycle, but future cycles.)

Modifié par lillitheris, 04 juillet 2012 - 10:56 .

[Ieldra]

Vigilant111 wrote...

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!!!

So, any uploaded organic mind is......dead? Sorry, but that has been proven wrong within the ME universe (even if you discount the Reapers). Also, Legion was in contact with a Reaper, and he says it's billions of uploaded organic minds, and that gestalt consciousness is clearly alive. The processes that make up an uploaded mind's personality are just running on different hardware. I guess it's hideously complicated to make all those emotional circuits functional, since in an organic body would be chemistry-based, but there's no reason why continuity of identity cannot be maintained.

BTW did you know that in the real world, scientists are testing brain implants that store memory? Right now?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 juillet 2012 - 11:18 .

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

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!!!

So, any uploaded organic mind is......dead? Sorry, but that has been proven wrong within the ME universe (even if you discount the Reapers). Also, Legion was in contact with a Reaper, and he says it's billions of uploaded organic minds, and that gestalt consciousness is clearly alive. The processes that make up an uploaded mind's personality are just running on different hardware. I guess it's hideously complicated to make all those emotional circuits functional, since in an organic body would be chemistry-based, but there's no reason why continuity of identity cannot be maintained.

BTW did you know that in the real world, scientists are testing brain implants that store memory? Right now?

I thought Legion meant AIs' consciousness

Storing MEMORY is not storing organic LIFE itself

Modifié par Vigilant111, 04 juillet 2012 - 11:39 .

[Ieldra]

@Vigilantus:
Memory is a part of identity. The less complicated part, right, but we're talking about early first steps taken by current real-world science which enables those memories to be used by the host.

But back to the ME universe: If you deny the existence of functional uploaded minds in the ME universe, you're denying canon. Doesn't work - remember this man who uploaded himself to an alien starship to talk with the uploaded species living therein?. We can speculate about the limits of what they can or cannot do, that depends on the hardware they're uploaded to, but it's very clear they *are* alive.

As for Legion and the Reapers specifically, I was referring to ME3, when he talked about having had contact with a Reaper, and most specifically about ME2, when he explained what a Reaper is: "Transcended flesh. Billions of organic minds, uploaded and conjoined within an immortal machine body" - as an answer to Shepard's statement "You know what they are." This is a direct quote from the game, though admittedly difficult to get.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 juillet 2012 - 12:05 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

But back to the ME universe: If you deny the existence of functional uploaded minds in the ME universe, you're denying canon. Doesn't work - remember this man who uploaded himself to an alien starship to talk with the uploaded species living therein?. We can speculate about the limits of what they can or cannot do, that depends on the hardware they're uploaded to, but it's very clear they *are* alive.

Those particular ones are alive for some value of alive, yes. The problem is that we don’t know whether it’s the same person, or a copy. This is not to imply that a living copy/clone is any less worth saving, just that the original may be dead.

So for the MIT guy, even if there is a 100% copy when uploading or downloading, he’s no longer the same person in the end. The new guy will think he’s the old one, but isn’t. What actually needs to happen is a wavefront transfer of whatever constitutes the person’s mind.

(The case with the geth consensus wasn’t really an upload, just a mental interface to it, so that’s an entirely different thing.)

((On the topic of geth/reapers…conjoined is a worrisome term. It has implications on reconstitution.))

Modifié par lillitheris, 04 juillet 2012 - 01:55 .

[Heeden]

lillitheris wrote...

No. I said actual consequences are irrelevant. For example, you can’t say that choosing Synthesis is morally right because you see that the actual consequences are good (in the epilogue, for some value of good). The actual consequences are not factors in the decision, because they have not happened yet.

So if you can't make your decision based on consequences you have to look at what the actual act does; then it's a moral call as to whether a leap in to the unknown is better than genocide or enslavement.

No, it can affect the most. (Not only this cycle, but future cycles.)

Every option will affect everyone, including future cycles, and anything but Refuse means the next crop of Involveds will have to adapt to our ways instead of forging their own destinies in the stars. Anyway that is the consequence, going purely on the act (as you insist we should) less people will be affected by Refuse because it does nothing, it maintains the status-quo of the galaxy as it has been for millions of years.

[Heeden]

lillitheris wrote...

So for the MIT guy, even if there is a 100% copy when uploading or downloading, he’s no longer the same person in the end. The new guy will think he’s the old one, but isn’t. What actually needs to happen is a wavefront transfer of whatever constitutes the person’s mind.

Now your wandering in to territory where the truth is not only unknown, but possibly (I would think probably) unknowable. Is Shepard the same person after project Lazerus? Are you the same person waking up in the morning who went to sleep at night? Is the idea of a continuous being even valid, or is time an illusion caused by single instants of experience where matter is arranged to give the illusion of memories and time? The "you" that you remember from earlier in your life could be a completely different entity or not actually exist at all.

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

But back to the ME universe: If you deny the existence of functional uploaded minds in the ME universe, you're denying canon. Doesn't work - remember this man who uploaded himself to an alien starship to talk with the uploaded species living therein?. We can speculate about the limits of what they can or cannot do, that depends on the hardware they're uploaded to, but it's very clear they *are* alive.

Those particular ones are alive for some value of alive, yes. The problem is that we don’t know whether it’s the same person, or a copy. This is not to imply that a living copy/clone is any less worth saving, just that the original may be dead.

In those cases where continuity of identity is retained, we do know. I'll try to find that reference from the Cerberus Network. But yeah, in the case of the Reapers, we do not know. However, we can assume that significant parts of the uploaded minds are congruent with the original, otherwise the Catalyst's claim of "preservation" would have no point. I think it is safe to assume that apart from memories, no value system and no perspective ever adopted by a Reaperized individual has been lost. The sum of that may constitute a new "gestalt mind", with individual minds either being recoverable or not. In the end it doesn't matter for how we value it: if the claim of "preservation" has any truth to it, then we are looking at a living avatar of a civilization. Perhaps you have a different perspective on this, but it's nothing I could ever dismiss from consideration.

So for the MIT guy, even if there is a 100% copy when uploading or downloading, he’s no longer the same person in the end. The new guy will think he’s the old one, but isn’t. What actually needs to happen is a wavefront transfer of whatever constitutes the person’s mind.

We're entering the thorny territory of what exactly constitutes identity. I don't think we'll solve that question in this thread. Once upload technology exists - and I'll assume that it would be able to transfer all the necessary information - then what is identity will have to be redefined. I recommend a look at the ruleset of the "Eclipse Phase" RPG (it's copylefted, so it costs you nothing) to see how they deal with it. The question is: if you can load your mind into another body, does that constitute a transfer of identity? Is identity defined by cognitive continuity, or does it necessarily mean continuity of the body? We have no reason to tackle such questions today, because today we are our bodies and our minds. But in a world where upload technology exists, it may be necessary to reconsider the traditional definitions.

(The case with the geth consensus wasn’t really an upload, just a mental interface to it, so that’s an entirely different thing.)

Yes, and that's why I didn't bring Shepard's excursion into the geth consensus into this debate.

((On the topic of geth/reapers…conjoined is a worrisome term. It has implications on reconstitution.))

It has. I have no idea if there's any possibility of reconstitution. But it doesn't necessarily have implications on how we have to consider a Reaper as a living entity, and avatar of a civilization.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

But back to the ME universe: If you deny the existence of functional uploaded minds in the ME universe, you're denying canon. Doesn't work - remember this man who uploaded himself to an alien starship to talk with the uploaded species living therein?. We can speculate about the limits of what they can or cannot do, that depends on the hardware they're uploaded to, but it's very clear they *are* alive.

Those particular ones are alive for some value of alive, yes. The problem is that we don’t know whether it’s the same person, or a copy. This is not to imply that a living copy/clone is any less worth saving, just that the original may be dead.

In those cases where continuity of identity is retained, we do know.

But we don’t. I can‘t say whether it’s unknowable, but without some mechanism to track the wavefront, it’s impossible to tell whether it’s a copy or not — even for the copy itself. (Assuming a perfect copy, obviously.)

However, we can assume that significant parts of the uploaded minds are congruent with the original, otherwise the Catalyst's claim of "preservation" would have no point. I think it is safe to assume that apart from memories, no value system and no perspective ever adopted by a Reaperized individual has been lost.

I don’t think it’s safe to assume that at all. Aside from its rather peculiar view on ‘preservation’, we have at no point actually been exposed to these individuals — which would have been an exceedingly easy way of giving some legitimacy to the operation.

That is not to say that it couldn’t be the case — which is why for a worst case perspective, it can be considered to have some validity. (Which is why Control is the ‘paragon choice’.)

We're entering the thorny territory of what exactly constitutes identity. I don't think we'll solve that question in this thread. Once upload technology exists - and I'll assume that it would be able to transfer all the necessary information - then what is identity will have to be redefined.

I don’t think it needs redefinition. The body is irrelevant, but there is a very distinct identity — the mind — that must continue to exist in any ‘upload’ as it would without the upload. The details thereof must be defined, yes.

[DrZann]

Heeden wrote...
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.

This is exactly what I've been thinking about. Refuse appears to be a moral act, at least deontologically it's the expected answer. Yet it could be argued that Shepard does have a duty to make a choice. And while Destroy and Control are obviously immoral, Synth isn't so clear cut.

[lillitheris]

DrZann wrote...

This is exactly what I've been thinking about. Refuse appears to be a moral act, at least deontologically it's the expected answer. Yet it could be argued that Shepard does have a duty to make a choice. And while Destroy and Control are obviously immoral, Synth isn't so clear cut.

Refuse is knowingly causing the death of all sapient beings through inaction. So no, there’s nothing even remotely good about it. (Edit: also, Shepard’s duty, straight from the CoC, is to destroy the Reapers.)

Synthesis is obviously immoral in that it imposes an unknown and unnecessary change on every living thing. It’s the worst violation of basic rights there is. If the choice was between that and death, then it could be considered to be just. But that’s not the choice.

Destroy causes the death of a group in order to save a larger group. In itself that could be considered a morally acceptable option, but the context of having an alternative option, it becomes troublesome.

Control is the least worst act — and certainly the most conservative one, both literally and colloquially. The downside is that it may continue the possible  enslavement of possibly sapient creatures for some time. It’s possible that this could be undone by some means, but one shouldn’t count on it. One thing is certain, however: Synthesis continues to be an option after Control (this is actually stated explicitly). No possibilities are lost through choosing Control, and it preserves all life. It is, therefore, the most conservative choice.

Modifié par lillitheris, 04 juillet 2012 - 07:59 .

[DrZann]

lillitheris wrote...

DrZann wrote...

This is exactly what I've been thinking about. Refuse appears to be a moral act, at least deontologically it's the expected answer. Yet it could be argued that Shepard does have a duty to make a choice. And while Destroy and Control are obviously immoral, Synth isn't so clear cut.

Refuse is knowingly causing the death of all sapient beings through inaction. So no, there’s nothing even remotely good about it.

For some one who refuses to let anyone consider the consequences of the acts you sure have a hard time keeping your hand out of that cookie jar. But if we're going to be looking at it from a consequentialists point of view, than yes you'd be right. But Synth also becomes the moral choice in that alchemy.

lillitheris wrote...
Synthesis is obviously immoral in that it imposes an unknown and unnecessary change on every living thing. It’s the worst violation of basic rights there is. If the choice was between that and death, then it could be considered to be just. But that’s not the choice.

Your anxiety of the unknown is noted, but the unknown is not immoral. Also, the idea that the change is unnecessary is a logical fallacy. The change is absolutely necessary if you wish to avoid the genocide, subjugation or harvest of one or more life-forms.

A far as "It’s the worst violation of basic rights there is". I only have to present you own arguments for slavery and genocide.

lillitheris wrote...
Destroy causes the death of a group in order to save a larger group. In itself that could be considered a morally acceptable option, but the context of having an alternative option, it becomes troublesome.

Control is the least worst act — and certainly the most conservative one, both literally and colloquially. The downside is that it may continue the possible  enslavement of possibly sapient creatures for some time. It’s possible that this could be undone by some means, but one shouldn’t count on it. One thing is certain, however: Synthesis continues to be an option after Control (this is actually stated explicitly). No possibilities are lost through choosing Control, and it preserves all life. It is, therefore, the most conservative choice.

You are dipping your hand in the Consequentialists cookie jar again.

The next obvious problem with this argument is...Shepard is dead. You can't attribute any motivations or moral agency to the Robo-Shep that replaces the Catalyst. And I did't find Robo-Shep's Nietzschean epilogue very comforting.

Also, the most conservative choice by definition would be Refuse.

Modifié par DrZann, 04 juillet 2012 - 08:51 .

[DrZann]

Repost, again.

Modifié par DrZann, 04 juillet 2012 - 08:46 .

[Ieldra]

@lillitheris:
Actually, there's nothing obvious about the supposed moral inferiority of Synthesis compared to the other options. You presuppose that biochemical purity is something with more moral significance than the drawbacks of the other two choices. I challenge that assumption.

Also you assume that the most conservative choice is the best one. While that's a common intuition, I challenge that assumption, too. That's nothing but status quo bias talking. A good denied is an evil.

Edit:
Also, what DrZann said.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 juillet 2012 - 08:49 .

[saracen16]

YNation913 wrote...

I'd like to hear some opinions on these points:

1. If every civilization is fully integrated with technology, what are the consequences for those that have yet to develop any meaningful technology for themselves? (OP seemed to think undeveloped civilizations would somehow "ignore" it until they were ready? How is that possible if everyone is connected to a cache of unlimited information and memory?)

We still can not comprehend the exact nature of the synthesis procedure, which is basically just a change in organismal biochemistry. We know that they do have access to knowledge, not necessarily technology. Civilization is a product of social cohesion between diverse individuals under different environmental conditions. The Elcor of Dekuuna have evolved in a high-gravity environment where tumbling over means certain death, and as such have developed a conservative approach to life, choosing to live in secluded communities as opposed to large cities. The Turians live on a radiation-scorched planet, and as such cultivated a hardy lifestyle. In that sense, civilizations will invent their own methods with dealing with each other and the environment they grow up in.

As for those underdeveloped civilizations, it's a really good point. We've seen what happened to the krogan: they found new challenges in each other when they were adapting technology of their own. The question becomes whether that will be the same or similar fate of less developed societies. I think it can go either way: they become enlightened and use their newfound capabilities to overcome evolutionary challenge and gain enlightenment, or they can go the way of the krogan, in that they are too immature to handle such newfound technology.

2. I still haven't heard an explanation for Stargazer in the synthesis ending. If everyone's thoughts and memories are preserved, and are readily available for observation, nothing should ever be lost to time! I'm dying to hear an actual developer's comments on this.

This is what I think: galactic infrastructure is all but wiped out by the time of the final battle for Earth. As such, access to information is restricted. Moreover, it's a war, so there's chaos. It's impossible to recount all the details of the war unless the Reapers brought their video cameras with them.

[Heeden]

lillitheris wrote...

But we don’t. I can‘t say whether it’s unknowable, but without some mechanism to track the wavefront, it’s impossible to tell whether it’s a copy or not — even for the copy itself. (Assuming a perfect copy, obviously.)

Okay I gotta ask, what is this wavefront you've mentioned?

Modifié par Heeden, 04 juillet 2012 - 11:30 .

[Enthalpy]

Hey Synthesis folks, do you think indoctrination is a permanent property of a Reaper? We see from the Derelict Reaper that a Reaper that is for all intents and purposes nonfunctional can still drastically indoctrinate the people inside it. Not to mention the various small artifacts we find scattered across the galaxy. Is it safe to allow them to go where they please, post-ending? (Hypothetically speaking, because it would take significant forces to restrain them.)

Also, how do you think they came to work together with the life-forms of the current cycle? Do you think the galactic alliance fired on them post-ending? Do you think some of them would want to conquer the galaxy for themselves? Do you think some made a FTL jump into the nearest star?

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@lillitheris:
Actually, there's nothing obvious about the supposed moral inferiority of Synthesis compared to the other options. You presuppose that biochemical purity is something with more moral significance than the drawbacks of the other two choices. I challenge that assumption.

I don’t know where you’re coming up with this ‘biochemical purity’ nonsense. The obvious part was directly referring to what I was responding to, claiming that the moral implications were not clear.

They are very clear. Unnecessary, frivolous, and unknown change given alternatives, and done without consent. There’s very little good in that.

Also you assume that the most conservative choice is the best one. While that's a common intuition, I challenge that assumption, too. That's nothing but status quo bias talking. A good denied is an evil.

…I did say that it was the most conservative one. Using that exact word.

[lillitheris]

[quote]DrZann wrote...

[quote]lillitheris wrote...

[quote]DrZann wrote...

This is exactly what I've been thinking about. Refuse appears to be a moral act, at least deontologically it's the expected answer. Yet it could be argued that Shepard does have a duty to make a choice. And while Destroy and Control are obviously immoral, Synth isn't so clear cut. [/quote]

Refuse is knowingly causing the death of all sapient beings through inaction. So no, there’s nothing even remotely good about it.[/quote]

For some one who refuses to let anyone consider the consequences of the acts you sure have a hard time keeping your hand out of that cookie jar. But if we're going to be looking at it from a consequentialists point of view, than yes you'd be right. But Synth also becomes the moral choice in that alchemy.[/quote]

Cthulhu on a ******. The actual consequences are irrelevant. Seriously. This is not a hard concept.

At the time of making the decision, it is perfectly clear that inaction will cause the death of every sapient being.

[quote][quote]lillitheris wrote...
Synthesis is obviously immoral in that it imposes an unknown and unnecessary change on every living thing. It’s the worst violation of basic rights there is. If the choice was between that and death, then it could be considered to be just. But that’s not the choice.[/quote]

Your anxiety of the unknown is noted, but the unknown is not immoral. Also, the idea that the change is unnecessary is a logical fallacy. The change is absolutely necessary if you wish to avoid the genocide, subjugation or harvest of one or more life-forms.[/quote]

No, the change is not necessary. You may view the decision that causes the change to be necessary. It isn’t, but you may. The change itself isn’t.

And the unknown is not immoral, you’re absolutely correct. I never said it was. I said that the decision to apply a change whose


[quote]A far as "It’s the worst violation of basic rights there is". I only have to present you own arguments for slavery and genocide.[/quote]

Correct, if you buy into the slavery fantasy. I’ve at no point said those options are awesome; just that Synthesis is worse.

[quote]lillitheris wrote...
Destroy causes the death of a group in order to save a larger group. In itself that could be considered a morally acceptable option, but the context of having an alternative option, it becomes troublesome.

Control is the least worst act — and certainly the most conservative one, both literally and colloquially. The downside is that it may continue the possible  enslavement of possibly sapient creatures for some time. It’s possible that this could be undone by some means, but one shouldn’t count on it. One thing is certain, however: Synthesis continues to be an option after Control (this is actually stated explicitly). No possibilities are lost through choosing Control, and it preserves all life. It is, therefore, the most conservative choice.
[/quote]

You are dipping your hand in the Consequentialists cookie jar again.[/quote]

Actual consequences ≠ predictions. (The problem with Synthesis is that you cannot make comprehensible predictions.)

These are data known at the time of making the decision.

[quote]The next obvious problem with this argument is...Shepard is dead. You can't attribute any motivations or moral agency to the Robo-Shep that replaces the Catalyst. And I did't find Robo-Shep's Nietzschean epilogue very comforting.[/quote]

If you choose to ignore the claims made by the Catalyst about Control (which are rather clear about retaining motivations etc.) — while of course simultaneously not doing the same for its explanations of Synthesis — then you could assume that ShepardAI will indeed be somehow corrupted. You can use that as your baseline. That is something that can be reasoned about.

[quote]Also, the most conservative choice by definition would be Refuse.[/quote]

Not sure if… you may need to verify your definitions of conservation and conservatism. It just isn’t.

Modifié par lillitheris, 05 juillet 2012 - 12:12 .

[Heeden]

Enthalpy wrote...

Hey Synthesis folks, do you think indoctrination is a permanent property of a Reaper? We see from the Derelict Reaper that a Reaper that is for all intents and purposes nonfunctional can still drastically indoctrinate the people inside it. Not to mention the various small artifacts we find scattered across the galaxy. Is it safe to allow them to go where they please, post-ending? (Hypothetically speaking, because it would take significant forces to restrain them.)

I think Indoctrination is like a weapon system, I presume it can be switched off but I'm not entirely sure.

Also, how do you think they came to work together with the life-forms of the current cycle? Do you think the galactic alliance fired on them post-ending? Do you think some of them would want to conquer the galaxy for themselves? Do you think some made a FTL jump into the nearest star?

I'm guessing initial contact was a very delicate affair with no-one on our side being entirely sure what's going on. However so far I've sent surprise-packages of Geth and Rachni (2 other possibly extinction-level threats) to work on the Crucible and after an initial pant-crapping everyone seemed to accept them fine.

Maybe some Reapers would want to conquer the galaxy out of pure ambition, maybe others would want to stop them out of pure benevolence. My guess is they'd rather help out or do nothing, it's difficult to see what they would desire out of conquest. I do think it's probably some of them would have found a way to auto-euthanise.

[lillitheris]

Heeden wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

But we don’t. I can‘t say whether it’s unknowable, but without some mechanism to track the wavefront, it’s impossible to tell whether it’s a copy or not — even for the copy itself. (Assuming a perfect copy, obviously.)

Okay I gotta ask, what is this wavefront you've mentioned?

It derives from the (unsubstantiated) quantum consciousness theories. They’re somewhat interesting, but I really just use the term as a shorthand for a consciousness.

[Heeden]

lillitheris wrote...

It derives from the (unsubstantiated) quantum consciousness theories. They’re somewhat interesting, but I really just use the term as a shorthand for a consciousness.

If you're referring to Penrose/Hameroff's Orch-OR theory, they admit that even if fully-realised this theory would not explain the hard problems of the mind, which are likely untouchable by physical sciences on account of being purely subjective in nature.

[Enthalpy]

Heeden wrote...

Enthalpy wrote...

Hey Synthesis folks, do you think indoctrination is a permanent property of a Reaper? We see from the Derelict Reaper that a Reaper that is for all intents and purposes nonfunctional can still drastically indoctrinate the people inside it. Not to mention the various small artifacts we find scattered across the galaxy. Is it safe to allow them to go where they please, post-ending? (Hypothetically speaking, because it would take significant forces to restrain them.)

I think Indoctrination is like a weapon system, I presume it can be switched off but I'm not entirely sure.

Also, how do you think they came to work together with the life-forms of the current cycle? Do you think the galactic alliance fired on them post-ending? Do you think some of them would want to conquer the galaxy for themselves? Do you think some made a FTL jump into the nearest star?

I'm guessing initial contact was a very delicate affair with no-one on our side being entirely sure what's going on. However so far I've sent surprise-packages of Geth and Rachni (2 other possibly extinction-level threats) to work on the Crucible and after an initial pant-crapping everyone seemed to accept them fine.

Maybe some Reapers would want to conquer the galaxy out of pure ambition, maybe others would want to stop them out of pure benevolence. My guess is they'd rather help out or do nothing, it's difficult to see what they would desire out of conquest. I do think it's probably some of them would have found a way to auto-euthanise.

We've definitely seen different levels of indoctrination (Saren, Benezia, and TIM, vs the STG operatives and TIM's troops), but I don't ever recall a Reaper/Reaper artifact not influencing anyone at all. Especially considering the STG operatives -- they weren't being used to fight for Sovereign, so why would Sovereign bother indoctrinating them? Unless it's to prove a point to Saren. Hm. I can let that slide.

Anyway, I think the monoliths from the Evolution comic stopped working after they were blown to smithereens. But anything intact? Always seemed dangerous.

Oh yeah, I remember the email about shooting out a geth's "flashlight." That was hilarious. I don't know though; after all, no one is in control or command of the Reapers, and so Hackett isn't going to accept them as quickly, even if Harbinger says Shepard taught them to play nice. 

Where are we told that Harbinger is the oldest Reaper? Do we know if it's the "leader"?

As for conquest, I have a weird idea: if the Reapers are really billions of individual minds, a nation in a synthetic shell, then they could want to conquer organics or capture geth to "download" into them, to be free of the shell and walk/fly/swim again. Like the ancient starship people from Cerberus news, but more violent.

[Heeden]

Enthalpy wrote...

Where are we told that Harbinger is the oldest Reaper? Do we know if it's the "leader"?

It's assumed that he is by Earth Command, I don't think it's ever proven.

As for conquest, I have a weird idea: if the Reapers are really billions of individual minds, a nation in a synthetic shell, then they could want to conquer organics or capture geth to "download" into them, to be free of the shell and walk/fly/swim again. Like the ancient starship people from Cerberus news, but more violent.

The state of being for the minds inside a Reaper is very much up for debate and speculation. However if there is an individual who remembers or yearns for the experience of having a body at a macro scale, I'm pretty sure the Reapers could manufacture one (or at least borrow one from the Geth). In fact I expect the Reapers to create avatars either as a representative of the whole or just a part, just as I expect organics to upload themselves in to a Reaper mind to see what it is like.

[Enthalpy]

Heeden wrote...

Enthalpy wrote...

Where are we told that Harbinger is the oldest Reaper? Do we know if it's the "leader"?

It's assumed that he is by Earth Command, I don't think it's ever proven.

As for conquest, I have a weird idea: if the Reapers are really billions of individual minds, a nation in a synthetic shell, then they could want to conquer organics or capture geth to "download" into them, to be free of the shell and walk/fly/swim again. Like the ancient starship people from Cerberus news, but more violent.

The state of being for the minds inside a Reaper is very much up for debate and speculation. However if there is an individual who remembers or yearns for the experience of having a body at a macro scale, I'm pretty sure the Reapers could manufacture one (or at least borrow one from the Geth). In fact I expect the Reapers to create avatars either as a representative of the whole or just a part, just as I expect organics to upload themselves in to a Reaper mind to see what it is like.

Ah. I always thought of Harby as the prothean Reaper due to the 4 eyes. Was it ever said that they never created a prothean Reaper?

Yeah, in the best case borrowing from the geth (or tapping into TIM's collection of fembots) seems plausible. They could potentially use the existing husks as an interim solution, but people will object vehemently for sure. Do you think the husks' previous identities are maintained after conversion? To me they are like Collectors -- essentially synthetic platforms with fleshy bits stuck on.