9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Priss Blackburne]

Harbinger is the first reaper, made from the original race that created the catalyst, after he turned on them. Or so the leaked leviathan DLC from the EC DLC download stats in new conversations with the catalyst.

[Heeden]

Enthalpy wrote...

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?

After finding evidence that the first attempt at a Prothean Reaper failed (possibly due to their quad-strand DNA) EDI speculates they never made another attempt, changing them in to Collectors instead.

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.

Personally I think no, the husks and other Reaper-forces undergo many changes and are not recreations of the original form. Possibly they go a bit like Robocop (with occasional leaks from the previous life) but I think they will be new entities in their own right, with intelligence levels depending on the sophistication of the tech used in their creation.

[Enthalpy]

Heeden wrote...
After finding evidence that the first attempt at a Prothean Reaper failed (possibly due to their quad-strand DNA) EDI speculates they never made another attempt, changing them in to Collectors instead.

Ah, ok. Thanks.

Personally I think no, the husks and other Reaper-forces undergo many changes and are not recreations of the original form. Possibly they go a bit like Robocop (with occasional leaks from the previous life) but I think they will be new entities in their own right, with intelligence levels depending on the sophistication of the tech used in their creation.

If you mean that the resemblance to whatever they were before ends at appearance, then yes, I think so too. I'm not so sure about previous life -- would Reaper tech bother to maintain the host's memories, even in cases where the head is not preserved? Perhaps some sort of VI (a la Loki mech) or a Reaper process runs the show.

(I like to think of the husk in the EC as some sort of Reaper process -- "I haven't been this close to the ground in 3,450,000 years!" )

Edit: format

Modifié par Enthalpy, 05 juillet 2012 - 02:51 .

[Uncle Jo]

[quote]saracen16 wrote...

In time, yes, green Liara will not be blue Liara. However, at the outset, green Liara is blue Liara. The self is composed of many things: experiences, memories, knowledge, relationships, etc. None of these are changed at the point Synthesis happens. In time, yes, they do change significantly, but they retain the choice of how it progresses in these new settings.

[/quote]I wouldn't be so sure about it. Memories, experiences, relationships and so on were all based on "Blue Liara". They accorded to a state in which she's not anymore. The "new" perspectives offered by synthesis made them, if I dare say, obsolete. New settings will lead to new thinking, even if they don't want to.


[quote]I'm not so sure. The Control ending can go either way, allowing both organics and synthetics to retain their individuality, but using the Reapers as enforcers for a new peace between the two groups.

[/quote]By maintaining the Reapers in the game in the control ending, you still validates the conclusions of the brat. He thought of synthetics and organics as children who will always need an adult/overseer. You may have replaced him by a more tactful, comprehensive one. But you're still an overseer.
And make no mistake, Shep's speech resemble greatly to a dictatorial one : they always promise to protect people, help them build a bright future and end with the violations of the most basic rights and martial law.


[quote]I don't have to be a Reaper to agree with the Catalyst's theory or logic loop. If the evidence is there and it makes sense, its not unnatural for me to act on it.

[/quote]The evidences are completely valid for the brat's experience, not ours. He doesn't hold the absolute truth. Even more if he was proven wrong. We build our own future and don't take it from superpowerful god-like machines.


[quote]That AI's will be harmless and/or benevolent is based on the notion that AI's will never see their organic creators as obsolete or irrelevant, nor will they be able to exceed limits and instead remain in stagnation. It also assumes that someone, somewhere won't be creating a more powerful AI.

[/quote]Absolutely not. I'm also taking account of synthetics reaching the tech sing but I won't buy it's inevitable bad outcome. What happened yesterday won't always happen tomorrow. It's possibility not a certainty.

It's still strange that you're so distrustful of AIs and yet give so much credit to the Brat.


[quote]Organic creators have a degree of power over their synthetic underlings. Should these underlings rise above, many organics will fear instability in the relationship of dominance that they have over these automatons. Reciprocally, the automatons will eventually gain the most basic function of organics: self-preservation. Conflict always arises in differences of power, especially where evolution, be it social, economic, or political, is involved. We've seen that in history: the struggle for equal rights is almost always a violent one.

[/quote]You're absolutely right. But here again there is proof that the outcome can be good : The Geth and the Quarians. You know, we have something that the brat does not : it's called Hope.

Hope to not repeat the mistakes of the past, hope that tomorrow will be better than today. It's feeling that not always rely on logic and cold statistics. It can naturally lead to delusions but it also makes us able to achieve the (seemly) impossible. You sure know the expression "Against all odds" ?


[quote]Which is strange because you were willing to give synthetics a chance, in spite of their violent history (ala. the geth and Quarians). Why not the krogan?

[/quote]Again I haven't expressed myself correctly. I cured the genophage even knowing that the Krogans could be a threat. The Dalatrace thought exactly like the brat: the Krogans rebelled, ergo the Krogans will always rebel. And did you say to her ? NO.

[quote]If you think their sacrifice is worth it, then I won't stop you. However, I don't think that EDI nor the Geth are a worthy price to pay. 

[/quote] It was the price to pay to get rid of the Reapers and their insane boss (or a collateral damage if I want get cynical). No war is won without sacrifice.

No one can sleep well with such a sword of Damocles above their head. Aside from being an unchallenged threat to the galaxy, they didn't even respect us, nor have the same conception of life and thought that turning few thousands humans,  turians, or asari, or whoever into a goo is enough to preserve a civilization. And if doesn't work then change everyone.

No, every species, every single life has the right to evolve the way it should, not as I or anyone else wants to.


[quote]Yeah, but that would probably be thousands of years in the future. The past will cease to be relevant. We've had stories of two peoples uniting (East and West Germany) and peace being made between warring nations. Yet, conflict is a fact of life that we can not escape from.

[/quote]You've said it yourself. Conflicts, struggles are a fact of life.


[quote]The point is that at the 50,000-year mark, organics reached a state where they can create violent AI's capable of wiping them out. We still don't know if the Protheans will lose their war against AI in the next 50,000 years if the Reapers decided to skip a cycle for no apparent reason other than for the sake of the argument. I do admit that the Reapers appearing at the time of the Metacon war can lead one to believe that the Reapers are pro-synthetic, but there is no indication otherwise to show that. I would only assume that the Zha'til were the geth of the Prothean cycle, simple tools for use by the Reapers, making, just like you said, the harvest more efficient.

[/quote]The Reapers aren't even pro-synthetics. Have you ever heard of an "ascended" synthetic life/civilization ? No, it was the classic "Divide and conquer". The Zha'til were also weakened, thus easier to eliminate.


[quote]Okay. I meant to say that the Reapers repeated many patterns of evolution (change) and dissolution (conflict) but we don't know why this is the case, assuming that they are responsible for the pattern vis-a-vis the Rachni war. You'd think that for countless eons, they'd have some experience.

[/quote]A bit stretched and a still very dangerous game (before they gained some experience, I'm pretty sure that in this case, some races were simply annihilated which contradicts their good intentions) but I see your point.

[quote]They're still machines nonetheless at their core: their efficiency at which they carry out their tasks, their weaponry, their technology, and their modifications... all machinery.

[/quote]I absolutely agree that their "body" is synthetic. Now "thinking like a machine" is all but clear. Sovereign and Harbinger showed not only a real arrogance but also that they were acting on their own ("I'm Sovereign and the Citadel is mine").


[quote]To harvest, you mean, yes.

[/quote]No, actually I really meant "Reproduce". I'm not even the one who came up with this word :

"You see humans being harvested and processed to become fuel for the way Reapers reproduce. This is their reproductive cycle and we're just a part of it. We're nothing to them"- Casey Hudson.

Which accords exactly with that what I saw in the three games.

Source: www.computerandvideogames.com/309188/mass-effect-3-bioware-on-surprises-inspiration-and-tough-decisions/

[quote]His logic engine is not a conjunctive argument (i.e. since conflict is both inevitable and evitable, it is false), but a unitary one (conflict is inevitable). The baseline is cooperation or control, but you only need one incident to support his theory.

[/quote]Agreed. We saw where its one sided vision lead him though. That's why I can't agree with him.

[quote]I agreed with the Catalyst's views, but to submit to them is to obey them without question, which I do not. I only chose the Synthesis option as I saw it as the least of the three evils. I would never refuse the Crucible because that would mean the end of the cycle. I wouldn't destroy the geth and EDI because I would not sacrifice their lives, nor would I allow the possibility of something like the Reapers happen again in a distant future. I would choose control only if I was capable of understanding and embracing my potential transcendence. I am aware of the consequences of synthesis, but I do not see any reason that it will lead to a sacrifice of individuality. Moreover, it saves many lives, that of the civilizations and the Reapers, all of them - like you said - nations.

I don't think synthesis is rosy, either, but I think that it is the least of all evils. All the ending choices have moral wrongs about them, and prospectively terrifying outcomes. It hearkens back to the Deus Ex series, where technology is put in a similar spotlight, each resulting in outcomes that are potentially monstrous. Hell, in Deus Ex Invisible War, you can reject all of them, leading to a bleak future and an apocalypse dominated by cyborgs.

[/quote]Good to see that you at least don't try to depict synthesis as the ideal solution. I don't want come to the classical "But you forced it on everyone".

However, you still think that there is no viable future without the Reapers, which is IMO a form of submission.

Let me ask you something: Would you have chosen Destroy if the Geth and EDI didn't in this case?

*snip*

[quote]The reason I cited the synthesis epilogue was to show you that they are not emotionless or brainwashed.

[/quote]Artistic vision. Not absolute truth. There are still changes to come.


[quote]"There's not enough time to explain" referred to the designers of the Crucible. He also said that he first noticed the design for the Crucible several cycles ago, meaning that the Crucible was birthed as a result of the Reaper cycle, not at its onset.

[/quote]Agreed. My bad.

[quote]Themselves.

[/quote]Edit: My point, exactly. What was the point then to create the Reapers, if their solution was even worse than the given problem ?
You rightly objected that the next cycles can come up with an even more terrifying solution, or that the AIs won't even let us the time do so, but since no one have the ability to read in the future, we can only assume. I do it it in an optimistic way in this case.

[quote]I never said that synthesis is a utopia, but yeah, I agree. The point in the ending is that you have to decide which is more important for your future.

And that's what makes the scope of this game epic. Through a series of small decisions right up to the very end, we shaped a galaxy. It is mind-boggling to think about the implications and the possibilities if this was real life.


[/quote]Absolutely. There will be even more to say with the eventual Leviathan DLC.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 05 juillet 2012 - 01:27 .

[Ieldra]

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.)

Indoctrination is done through a combination of some kind of radiation, plus auditory effects in an atmosphere, and nanotechnology. I suppose that that nanotech is still around, while the Reaper has control over the radiation.
Also, it is a known property of indoctrination that the victims gain a mental link to the Reapers, who then proceed to take over their minds. I would think that a Reaper has control over that as well.

So I don't think there will be any more indoctrination, but I hypothesize that the same nanotechnology is now used to create the mental link to the Reapers that allows the knowledge of past cycles to proliferate, possibly even mental links between people. Recall that one of the Cerberus scientists on the derelict Reaper say he can "feel all of us". Only that now since people can integrate with technology, they have control over the process. 

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 think that the Reapers are beyond the need to conquer as a rule. They are self-sufficient apart from needing energy, which the stars provide enough of. I guess there may be a few rogues, but they should be dealt with easily. I'd be surprised if there weren't a few suicides as well. In general, I think that Reapers are as diverse as people within the paradigm of their existence.

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...
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.

I don't think any of the decisions can ever be said to be frivolous. That would imply we have an easy way out. Unnecessary is a matter of opinion given the context and the information we're given. And lastly,  we get a description of what will happen. It's about as clear as what will happen to Shepard in Control. I may not have a very concrete idea of what exactly "integrating with synthetic technology" will entail, but neither do I have a good idea what Control!Shepard losing her connection to her humanity will entail. I fact it's even less concrete. Having an immortal machine god around who's losing its connection to what it was before.... that sounds ominously like the kind of synthetic we'd rather not have around. At least the Synthesis effect are loosely implied to be beneficial for both sides of the organic/synthetic divide.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 juillet 2012 - 08:25 .

[SpectreVeldt]

lillitheris 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.

I did, actually.  Especially my latter bullet points.  And I assume you mean explanation of the question: can we make an educated guess?  

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.

And this is what you keep repeating.  It's been clear that I am not talking about whatever you want to (mainly) argue.  Yours was a very specific statement (which can then be related to your argument, but again, that is not what I and a couple others were discussing): we can't know the ends of Synthesis.  Which I not only describe in my thread, but provide examples--I am backed up by evidence.  Your responses have been simply to repeat yourself.  If you want to say that we can never know all of the potential consequences and implications of Synthesis, fine.  (Though, actually, in analytical debate and discussion, using the word 'never' is taboo.)  Logical (Inductive) Reasoning 101: You shouldn't say, "All swans are white," based on personal observation.  Besides being sample population bias, the aforementioned statement is also based off the assumption that you've specific information detailing every swan in the world, but more than that--you are also operating off another assumption about the future.  This is called falsifiability.

In any case, you cannot say that we can't know anything about the ending or future of Synthesis (thereby indicating that we shouldn't even try to understand such implications) because we clearly can.  I mention specific examples and go into great detail about how we can better understand the ending.  I mean...I state very specific examples!  Actualy examples that we can know at least something.  Why do you keep ignoring this?  Not to mention that the Catalyst  and EDI tells us straight up, what will and has happened in the Synthesis ending.  And as ambiguous and open-ended as their explanations were, it is still more than nothing.

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 still have not defined our "level of consciousness" prior to the Synthesis solution.  You need to know this (or at least educate yourself) before questioning the new level of consciousness.  Again, example: 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"?  This is a necessary step in critical analysis.  You need to illustrate understanding with the knowledge to tell the difference.  If you are unwilling to do so, it just shows that you are unwilling to analyze and improve upon your own arguments and be party to a logical discussion and debate (again, youtube comes to mind).  So, I am still waiting.

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

*Facepalm*  You realize that that is what a theory is, right?  By formulating theories, we have and can explain things.  But, more importantly, I never discussed how Synthesis works.  That is a complete non sequitur...again.

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.

Actually, that is not empirical evidence lol.  It is not even close to the actual scientific definition of empirical.  Or evidence, for that matter, let alone evidence that can be tested via the scientific method.  And also, you are employing another fallacy.

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.

Sigh.  I make actual predictions in my thread btw, backed up with actual evidence, utilizing analytical processes.  It's already been done.  You just sound silly now repeating that nobody can predict the implications of Synthesis "to any degree" when I (and I'm just one person) have clearly already done so, whether that 'degree' is big or small.

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...

I never discussed this and certainly never stated that I believed "the ends justify the means."  I'd appreciate it if you'd stop speaking for me.

...because you don’t actually know what the ends are.

Whether you want to believe it or not, you can possibly know what some of the "ends" are.  This is called making an educated guess, which is what I keep saying.  It is a guess--not absolute, irrefutable "knowledge."  Hence, the hypotheses (when you run your 'guess' through the scientific method).  This is how we come up with theories (again, scientific definition).  Just because it is a theory, and not some state of absolute clarity, does not automatically make it invalid.  Evolution and gravity are both theories, after all.

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...

All you're doing now is employing circular logic.  You, again, just spent the first half of your post talking about the significance of what "Synthesis might mean and how it might work," and are now contradicting yourself by saying that it is insignificant.

What you are doing is just making a statement and treating it as absolute fact without evidence, not allowing said arguments to undergo rigorous, analytical scrutiny.  Why even bother then?  You've already made up your mind, and nothing is going to change it, no matter how erudite the arguments or observations, or how empirical the methods.  Only thing is you keep expecting people to accept your statements, as if on faith.  You make a statement and have at least three people who tell you that said statement is flawed, going so far as to provide evidence to the contrary.  This is a very fundamental and fallacious flaw.

As an aside, don't you want to educate yourself?  Improve yourself and your thought processes?  Learn to debate?  Learn to debate well?  Don't you want your future arguments to be more rooted in logical methodology than merely an opinion treated as fact?  I don't know about you, but I like to exercise my brain, usually via analytical debate.  With a skilled opponent, it is not only fun, but satisfying.  Even you must realize that the most exhausting 'debates' are usually ones with (as an example) Youtubers.  Mindlessly stating their own opinion, ignoring everyone else's valid arguments and evidence, yet crying out that all accept their opinion/argument as true--this rather animalistic need for validation without the necessary effort.

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

You've really got to stop bringing up "the moral problem," as it was clear what I and in particular, user SithDuke, were addressing: your belief that we cannot understand, even a little bit, the ending's implications.  Your belief is not supported by anything else other than your opinions whereas I provide concrete evidence and valid arguments--without ever making it about my opinion.  I come up with cold, hard statements, calculations, and questions.  That we can further educate ourselves on the ending is not an opinion.  We can employ the scientific method here.  It's like saying: we can learn more math by studying math.

Modifié par SpectreVeldt, 05 juillet 2012 - 11:16 .

[lillitheris]

SpectreVeldt wrote...

lillitheris 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.

I did, actually.  Especially my latter bullet points.  And I assume you mean explanation of the question: can we make an educated guess? 

Your OP has nothing to do with an explanation. You’re just talking about themes. It doesn’t even have bullet points.

So, I look through the thread. Nowhere in there do you offer any explanation or anything that comes even close to it. There’s some speculation of what some of the possible effects could be.

Ieldra2 has done a wonderful job actually developing and gathering theories. To claim that you’re even close to that level of explanation is ludicrous and/or delusional, and this is obvious at the first read of your material.

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 still have not defined our "level of consciousness" prior to the Synthesis solution. You need to know this (or at least educate yourself) before questioning the new level of consciousness.

No, I don’t. Synthesis makes the argument that it ascends everyone to a new level of consciousness. Lacking that level of consciousness means that it is not possible to understand it. That’s my definition.

Or, if you want to put it another way: if Synthesis is understandable within the current level of consciousness, then choosing Synthesis is pointless, because you can get there anyway.

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

You've really got to stop bringing up "the moral problem," as it was clear what I and in particular, user SithDuke, were addressing: your belief that we cannot understand, even a little bit, the ending's implications.

It’s a fact, explicitly stated. Synthesis can only be understood by those it has been enacted on.

Modifié par lillitheris, 05 juillet 2012 - 01:14 .

[SpectreVeldt]

lillitheris wrote...
Your OP has nothing to do with an explanation. You’re just talking about themes. It doesn’t even have bullet points.

Wow, that was fast.  I'm just going to say that, under the assumption that the question was actually: can we make an educated guess, i.e., gather information on the potential implications of Synthesis, then, yes, I did actually answer that, and went into even more detail to explain just how, providing even more examples.  I'm not just talking about themes; you either didn't read it carefully or you didn't understand it.  And so far, the only person who has had any problem connecting my thread with exactly what I and some others have been discussing.

So, I look through the thread. Nowhere in there do you offer any explanation or anything that comes even close to it. There’s some speculation of what some of the possible effects could be.

That's certainly part of what I discuss--which is, in itself, answering the very question: can we make an educated guess?

Ieldra2 has done a wonderful job actually developing and gathering theories. To claim that you’re even close to that level of explanation is ludicrous and/or delusional, and this is obvious at the first read of your material.

I have no idea who you're talking about.  I never said any such thing, and this habit of yours (in essence, continuously coming up with new lies about what I or another person said) is officially getting on my nerves.  You keep inserting what you want me to say.  I suppose that makes it easier.  What's more funny is how you've contradicted yourself again, having stated all I was doing (in your eyes), was describing what could happen (it's a bit more complex than that).  In other words, I was theorizing, developing hypotheses...and through an empirical process.  This last point is incredibly significant, no matter how much you try to diminish it.

lillitheris wrote...

SpectreVeldt wrote...

lillitheris wrote...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 still have not defined our "level of consciousness" prior to the Synthesis solution.  You need to know this (or at least educate yourself) before questioning the new level of consciousness.  Again, example: 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"?  This is a necessary step in critical analysis.  You need to illustrate understanding with the knowledge to tell the difference.

No, I don’t.

I can't say I'm surprised, but this is so utterly puerile and informative.  You ask others for information and evidence, yet absolutely refuse to provide your own.

Synthesis makes the argument that it ascends everyone to a new level of consciousness. Lacking that level of consciousness means that it is not possible to understand it. That’s my definition.

That's not a definition.  That's you just reiterating your personal opinion.  Think: 'operational definition.'  Feel free to Google that.

Or, if you want to put it another way: if Synthesis is understandable within the current level of consciousness, then choosing Synthesis is pointless, because you can get there anyway.

Still an opinion lol.  And still absolutely, 100% ignoring what I and some others on here have repeatedly stated.  You are operating on so many assumptions and treating your opinions as true, it's ridiculous.  Did you know that there is a positive correlation between abrasiveness and ignorance (many different forms).  In an APA study, subjects who were uneducated on a particular subject were not necessarily abrasive/confident, but subjects who showcased abrasiveness on a particular subject tended to have less information than their peers.  These results were statistically significant.  An intelligent or educated person will generally be more careful about making such blatantly opinion/emotionally-driven statements like yours.  It's like there is no filter for you.  You just type whatever comes into your mind without consideration.  You've contradicted yourself, used so many fallacies, I've lost count (your favorite being strawman), you've gone on complete tangents, and you are absolutely unwilling to understand any ideas or words besides your own.  You are the epitome of the youtube user who thinks s/he can 'debate' with the sole power of her opinion.

lillitheris wrote...

SpectreVeldt wrote...
You've really got to stop bringing up "the moral problem," as it was clear what I and in particular, user SithDuke, were addressing: your belief that we cannot understand, even a little bit, the ending's implications.

It’s a fact, explicitly stated. Synthesis can only be understood by those it has been enacted on.

I have to get to work soon, so I'm just going to wrap this up.  Your statement is basically the equivalent of saying that a white man could not understand what it's like to be a black man.  And that's correct.  But, as I stated previously, I'm not talking about absolute clarity and knowledge.  We were discussing "educated guesses" and implications.  Through the same empirical methods, a white man can try to understand the viewpoint of a black man by understanding certain implications, potential losses and gains; a white man may surmise or predict some of the things he may experience as a black man that he had not as a white one (like descrimination).  Or a gay man may understand certain aspects of being a black man, and what that entails (again, descrimination).  But you are saying that, because we cannot reach 100% clarity and absolutely perfect understanding, that we should not even try.  When, in fact, human history has shown we can do and have done just that.  If humans could/did not do this, then who knows how antiquated we would be, in terms of civil rights and equality.

Modifié par SpectreVeldt, 05 juillet 2012 - 02:49 .

[Slakky]

Ieldra2 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.)

Indoctrination is done through a combination of some kind of radiation, plus auditory effects in an atmosphere, and nanotechnology. I suppose that that nanotech is still around, while the Reaper has control over the radiation.
Also, it is a known property of indoctrination that the victims gain a mental link to the Reapers, who then proceed to take over their minds. I would think that a Reaper has control over that as well.

So I don't think there will be any more indoctrination, but I hypothesize that the same nanotechnology is now used to create the mental link to the Reapers that allows the knowledge of past cycles to proliferate, possibly even mental links between people. Recall that one of the Cerberus scientists on the derelict Reaper say he can "feel all of us". Only that now since people can integrate with technology, they have control over the process. 

I think the whole point is that we don't know.  The balancing factor on Synthesis isn't that everyone glows green, it's that you're creating a bunch of independent, very likely unbalanced, entities with access to technology that's expressly made to enable horrible evil.

If Starjar was all "Nah, they'll be cool," it would make Synthesis the only reasonable ending.  Sort of like how Destroy has to kill EDI and the Geth.  Even though as of EC, Starjar can apparently ignore the Crucible entirely and fly the Reapers into the sun if he wants.  It's all a contrivance to make Control not completely evil.

[Heeden]

Uncle Jo wrote...

I wouldn't be so sure about it. Memories, experiences, relationships and so on were all based on "Blue Liara". They accorded to a state in which she's not anymore. The "new" perspectives offered by synthesis made them, if I dare say, obsolete. New settings will lead to new thinking, even if they don't want to.

By maintaining the Reapers in the game in the control ending, you still validates the conclusions of the brat. He thought of synthetics and organics as children who will always need an adult/overseer. You may have replaced him by a more tactful, comprehensive one. But you're still an overseer.

That's pretty much the basis of all government - large numbers of people can not (or it is incredibly difficult for them to) rule themselves effectively so a system is put in place that concentrates the power. Every single race has some sort of ruling body.

And make no mistake, Shep's speech resemble greatly to a dictatorial one : they always promise to protect people, help them build a bright future and end with the violations of the most basic rights and martial law.

Dictatorships do not always end badly any more than violations of rights and martial law are exclusive to them. There have been benevolent dictatorships and malevolent democracies throughout history as well as the vice-versas (awkward phrase I know), the Roman Empire managed to resemble all permutations at various points in their history.

I think the ending makes it quite clear that your Paragon/Renegade rating dictates whether Shepard rules with an iron fist or a velvet glove.

It was the price to pay to get rid of the Reapers and their insane boss (or a collateral damage if I want get cynical). No war is won without sacrifice.

At that point the war was already won. You made those sacrifices to gain vengeance, not victory (or if I'm being cynical, "justice").

[Heeden]

Enthalpy wrote...

(I like to think of the husk in the EC as some sort of Reaper process -- "I haven't been this close to the ground in 3,450,000 years!" )

Edit: format

Also possible, or they could be some sort of offspring - a wholly new entity with qualities from both biological and technological "parents", possibly with some memories and experiences from both. The husk in Synthesis was a nice surprise in the EC, just seeing it looking around like an obviously living being opened up so much speculation as to what these beings are, how do they feel, how will organic respond to them.

[Heeden]

lillitheris wrote...

It’s a fact, explicitly stated. Synthesis can only be understood by those it has been enacted on.

It isn't, at least I can't find any part of the Catalyst or EDI's speech that says so.

EDI does mention a long-term development of Synthesised life the she cannot even imagine but that is once we develop beyond an event horizon, not the immediate effect.

[Ieldra]

@Slakky:
The big balancing factor of all the endings lies in their morality. Destroy commits multiple genocide, Control sets you up as a machine god and continues the Reapers' enslavement, Synthesis changes all life. Apart from that, all the epilogues paint the future in equally bright colors. For the immediate future anyway. Which one is "best" is completely a matter of our perception and personal philosophies.

So while of course someone will use those new technologies for evil - it always happens - it won't be enough to taint the generally bright picture of the future. The unknown factor is not some hidden evil lurking in the depth of the inherited knowledge (though that can also happen), it's the direction in which people will change. As EDI says, the line between organics and synthetics will increasingly vanish and lead to an unknown future she can't even imagine. Who are those future people? What will we become? Which horizons will they have to explore and which challenges will they have to meet. That's the unknown. The Orion's Arm project speculates that "transapients" will at times be weird and incomprehensible to "modosophonts" (their terms which I find useful), but I think it's plausible they will be as diverse in their ways as those who came before.

Besides, it may go against people's intuitions, but technology doesn't carry a moral taint for having been used for evil purposes.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 juillet 2012 - 03:53 .

[Slakky]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Slakky:
The big balancing factor of all the endings lies in their morality. Destroy commits multiple genocide, Control sets you up as a machine god and continues the Reapers' enslavement, Synthesis changes all life. Apart from that, all the epilogues paint the future in equally bright colors. For the immediate future anyway. Which one is "best" is completely a matter of our perception and personal philosophies.

In this explanation you're still resting on the assumption that the Reapers are salvageable and don't need someone holding their leash at all times.  There isn't a lot of evidence before the epilogues to support this view other than Starjar's implicit assumption, and its empathetic reasoning skills are not the greatest.

I'm just saying that Synthesis implies a religious belief in the ability of life to overcome the past and Be Good.  Also that the melodrama in the endings is contrived beyond the limits of good taste.

FWIW, I see all the choices as equally valid, except maybe Refuse, but that's just because I can't process it emotionally.  My 'canon' Shep chooses Synthesis.

Ieldra2 wrote...

So while of course someone will use those new technologies for evil - it always happens - it won't be enough to taint the generally bright picture of the future. The unknown factor is not some hidden evil lurking in the depth of the inherited knowledge (though that can also happen), it's the direction in which people will change. As EDI says, the line between organics and synthetics will increasingly vanish and lead to an unknown future she can't even imagine. Who are those future people? What will we become? Which horizons will they have to explore and which challenges will they have to meet. That's the unknown. The Orion's Arm project speculates that "transapients" will at times be weird and incomprehensible to "modosophonts" (their terms which I find useful), but I think it's plausible they will be as diverse in their ways as those who came before.

Besides, it may go against people's intuitions, but technology doesn't carry a moral taint for having been used for evil purposes.

I think this straw man is unintentional, but it's made of straw. The Reapers are the understanding of science necessary to make a neutron bomb locked inside an armed neutron bomb with an unspecified detonation mechanism. The issue is not some imagined spiritual taint on the knowledge, but the ridiculously dangerous package it comes in.

Modifié par Slakky, 05 juillet 2012 - 06:15 .

[Ieldra]

Slakky wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
@Slakky:
The big balancing factor of all the endings lies in their morality. Destroy commits multiple genocide, Control sets you up as a machine god and continues the Reapers' enslavement, Synthesis changes all life. Apart from that, all the epilogues paint the future in equally bright colors. For the immediate future anyway. Which one is "best" is completely a matter of our perception and personal philosophies.

In this explanation you're still resting on the assumption that the Reapers are salvageable and don't need someone holding their leash at all times.  There isn't a lot of evidence before the epilogues to support this view other than Starjar's implicit assumption, and its empathetic reasoning skills are not the greatest.

I've explained why I think that in a separate thread, pre-EC. It's linked in the OP, "About the nature of the Reapers and the Catalyst". I thought that the Reapers were avatars of past civilizations right from the first encounter with Sovereign on Virmire, and there's reason enough to believe they're not their own masters.

I'm just saying that Synthesis implies a religious belief in the ability of life to overcome the past and Be Good.  Also that the melodrama in the endings is contrived beyond the limits of good taste.

You mean, like Control requires a belief in the machine god staying benevolent? Or the bright future after Destroy a belief in people continuing to work together? I don't think post-Synthesis civilization will be perfect, and I don't think it's intended to be, in spite of the heavy-handed narrative (not so different from the other endings in that btw). What it is is different, exotic and *generally* good. Not *universally* good. It is for people who want to overcome fundamental limitations of our existence and. Not everyone wants that, especially not if the price is having to share your civilization with the likes of the Reapers.

FWIW, I see all the choices as equally valid, except maybe Refuse, but that's just because I can't process it emotionally.  My 'canon' Shep chooses Synthesis.

I agree. After the EC, I have Shepards for any of the three main options.

The Reapers are the understanding of science necessary to make a neutron bomb locked inside an armed neutron bomb with an unspecified detonation mechanism. The issue is not some imagined spiritual taint on the knowledge, but the ridiculously dangerous package it comes in.

Technology always looks more dangerous to those who don't understand it yet. Cerberus made significant inroads to understanding indoctrination without the Reapers' help, including ways to contain it. I'm not saying there won't be risks in having the Reapers around - that's part of that "jump into the unknown" -  but I take some confidence from the fact that human civilization hasn't blown itself up yet. Not that it wasn't close at times, but people tend to adapt to such things.

[PsyrenY]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'm just saying that Synthesis implies a religious belief in the ability of life to overcome the past and Be Good.  Also that the melodrama in the endings is contrived beyond the limits of good taste.

You mean, like Control requires a belief in the machine god staying benevolent? Or the bright future after Destroy a belief in people continuing to work together? I don't think post-Synthesis civilization will be perfect, and I don't think it's intended to be, in spite of the heavy-handed narrative (not so different from the other endings in that btw). What it is is different, exotic and *generally* good. Not *universally* good. It is for people who want to overcome fundamental limitations of our existence and. Not everyone wants that, especially not if the price is having to share your civilization with the likes of the Reapers.

Very much this.

Ieldra2 wrote... 

The Reapers are the understanding of science necessary to make a neutron bomb locked inside an armed neutron bomb with an unspecified detonation mechanism. The issue is not some imagined spiritual taint on the knowledge, but the ridiculously dangerous package it comes in.

Technology always looks more dangerous to those who don't understand it yet. Cerberus made significant inroads to understanding indoctrination without the Reapers' help, including ways to contain it. I'm not saying there won't be risks in having the Reapers around - that's part of that "jump into the unknown" -  but I take some confidence from the fact that human civilization hasn't blown itself up yet. Not that it wasn't close at times, but people tend to adapt to such things.

Also this.

Keep fighting the good fight.

[lillitheris]

SpectreVeldt wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
Your OP has nothing to do with an explanation. You’re just talking about themes. It doesn’t even have bullet points.

Wow, that was fast.  I'm just going to say that, under the assumption that the question was actually: can we make an educated guess, i.e., gather information on the potential implications of Synthesis, then, yes, I did actually answer that, and went into even more detail to explain just how, providing even more examples.

No, you didn’t. You have no explanation of how things could actually work, or how Shepard could make an ‘educated guess’. You’re just outright lying now.

Ieldra2 has done a wonderful job actually developing and gathering theories. To claim that you’re even close to that level of explanation is ludicrous and/or delusional, and this is obvious at the first read of your material.

I have no idea who you're talking about.  I never said any such thing, and this habit of yours (in essence, continuously coming up with new lies about what I or another person said) is officially getting on my nerves.

Seriously? I asked you for an explanation. You say you already explained everything in your thread. You didn’t. You had no explanation whatsoever. Of any kind. It’s a semi-interesting discussion, but has nothing to do with the comprehensibility of Synthesis before it takes place.

You’re either trolling, or delusional. In either case: goodbye.

Modifié par lillitheris, 05 juillet 2012 - 08:06 .

[Ieldra]

Priss Blackburne wrote...
Harbinger is the first reaper, made from the original race that created the catalyst, after he turned on them. Or so the leaked leviathan DLC from the EC DLC download stats in new conversations with the catalyst.

Interesting fact. Perhaps the Leviathan DLC will shed some more light on the nature of the Reapers. May I ask in which context you posted this? It's not clear to me.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Technology always looks more dangerous to those who don't understand it yet. Cerberus made significant inroads to understanding indoctrination without the Reapers' help, including ways to contain it.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

Cerberus studied indoctrination, and tried to understand it before actually committing to it. Morality of goal aside, this is a prudent approach.

It’s also the complete antithesis of the Synthesis option, which explicitly does not study before jumping into it.

So I assume you’re working toward agreeing with me that Control is the better choice.

Modifié par lillitheris, 05 juillet 2012 - 08:06 .

[Ieldra]

You have as much reason to assume that the machine god will stay benevolent as I have to assume that the risks of Synthesis will be containable.

And please stop telling me what I think. It's an extremely annoying habit of yours.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You have as much reason to assume that the machine god will stay benevolent as I have to assume that the risks of Synthesis will be containable.

I don’t really assume much…that’s why I don’t pick either of the crazy options.

But, yes, you’re highlighting the problem: you’re just going head first into something you don’t understand instead of making an effort to understand it first.

If it was just your life, knock yourself out… Mine? No. Edit: and, of course, Shep’s enough of a coward that he/she won’t even be there to take responsibility for it.

And please stop telling me what I think. It's an extremely annoying habit of yours.

It’d be much easier to guess what you’re thinking if your logic was internally consistent…

Modifié par lillitheris, 05 juillet 2012 - 08:18 .

[Ieldra]

@all:
Just in case anyone didn't find these yet, here are two threads of particular interest to people who think about choosing Synthesis:

(1) Why I trusted the Catalyst by HYR 2.0
(2) The Truth: the Reapers want Shepard to succeedThe Truth: the Reapers want Shepard to succeed[/url] by JustinElenbaal, a fascinating hypothesis making the Reapers complicit in Shepard's success.

I also added these to the OP.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 juillet 2012 - 09:05 .

[Xilizhra]

I just finished the game. Oddly... despite my liking of the concept of Synthesis, I couldn't choose it in an RP sense because, largely, the Catalyst's logic is so screwy that nothing it said felt helpful. Forget the Reaper rationale (I can at least see that as internally logical, if unethical), it first says that synthetics wiping out organics is inevitable, then says that Synthesis is inevitable... maybe there's some clever thinking that could be done to reconcile these two, but it was nothing my Shepard was up for while staggering around half-dead.

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...
I just finished the game. Oddly... despite my liking of the concept of Synthesis, I couldn't choose it in an RP sense because, largely, the Catalyst's logic is so screwy that nothing it said felt helpful. Forget the Reaper rationale (I can at least see that as internally logical, if unethical), it first says that synthetics wiping out organics is inevitable, then says that Synthesis is inevitable... maybe there's some clever thinking that could be done to reconcile these two, but it was nothing my Shepard was up for while staggering around half-dead.

It means that if organics and synthetics had enough time, they'd eventually achieve Synthesis, but without intervention, they won't have that time because synthetics will destroy organics before it could ever happen.

Granted, that's a rationalization, but I go from the assumption that the Catalyst is not stupid. There are some other contradictions in the Catalyst conversation as well which I can't as easily reconcile. What about "I control the Reapers" and "I embody the collective intelligence of all Reapers"?