9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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"?

The worst thing about this ending (well, one of the worst) is that Shepard has to make a decision while in a terrible physical and mental state. The option of Synthesis warrants much, much more conversation and clarification than Shepard is capable of at the moment, and while some of its themes may be foreshadowed earlier in the game, its presentation here does the possibility absolutely no justice, either in the positive or negatice sense. And as such, it's extremely hard for me to think of my Shepard making that choice; it just doesn't seem to fit. I personally would love it, but I'm not making the decision, Shepard is. Destroy is ultimately the one that fits her personality the best, at least mine.

Also, I don't think the Catalyst is stupid, but I'm quite willing to believe it's gone glitchy over the years.

[Ieldra]

I have Shepards with fitting personalities for any ending except Refuse - that's too much like sacrificing the future for the sake of a principle - but my main maleShep Cyrus chooses Synthesis. He's always been something of a visionary, and all the soldiering hasn't managed to get that out of him. His only regret is that he must break his promise to Miranda....

[Xilizhra]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I have Shepards with fitting personalities for any ending except Refuse - that's too much like sacrificing the future for the sake of a principle - but my main maleShep Cyrus chooses Synthesis. He's always been something of a visionary, and all the soldiering hasn't managed to get that out of him. His only regret is that he must break his promise to Miranda....

I only have and need one Shepard (I might have had two if Samara was a real romance option, but alas). Mine (who was originally named Diana, but that was before ME3's Diana Allers; I'm considering renaming her Sinead) is also on the visionary side, but considers protection ultimately more important. And if Synthesis is inevitable in any case, if the right precautions can be put up against synthetic wars (the geth conflict may be a sign of them beginning to develop the greater understanding on their own; if this trend continues, we could reach halfway to the Synthesis point fairly soon), all we need do is wait.

[Versus Omnibus]

My Shepard chose synthesis because he/she wanted the war to end, saving as many lives as he/she could. If blurring the line between synthetics and organics meant peace and that nobody else dies then he/she will make it.

[DrZann]

lillitheris wrote...

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.

You are incorrect, the consequences do not matter at all. I am examining the morality of the act and the intentions of the actor NOT the Consequences. Not the actual, imagined, hypothetical, intuited or other consequences. I am NOT seeking moral guidance from an examination of the consequences of an act but from the act itself. This is a deontological effort, not utilitarian.

lillitheris wrote...
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.

This does not make any logical sense. The change is part and parcel of Synthesis. An atomic transaction. You can't have one without the other. If you wish to avoid the genocide, subjugation or harvest of one or more life-forms than you must choose Synthesis. And if you choose Synthesis the change is not optional.

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

There are no degrees of morality. An act is either Immoral, Moral or Amoral. I was hoping Kant's categorical imperative would help me out here...

lillitheris wrote...
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.

Sure you can. The OP is an example of a comprehensible prediction. The shear number of predictions about the outcome of Synthesis and the commonality they shared with the EC are enough to refute this argument.

We also know that by choosing Synthesis we can avoid the genocide, subjugation or harvest of one or more life-forms.

But this is besides the point, I'm not considering the moral implicacions of the consequences of the act so I don't need to know consequences of the act.

lillitheris wrote...

DrZann wrote...
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.

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.

I never said anything about Robo-Shep being corrupted.

Modifié par DrZann, 05 juillet 2012 - 10:20 .

[Xilizhra]

Is it "genocide" if the geth can be reconstructed later? Unless you mean the Reapers, which may be another noteworthy issue...

[Heeden]

Xilizhra wrote...

Is it "genocide" if the geth can be reconstructed later? Unless you mean the Reapers, which may be another noteworthy issue...

When I refer to the "genocide" inherent in Destroy I mean both the Geth and the Reapers. I do hold on to some hope that the Geth and EDI can be repaired, but completely killing every Reaper in order to win is a terrible, horrible price to pay.

Edit: The more I think about Synthesis the more I think it's the option my Shep should have taken. Destroy goes against everything he stood for, Synthesis could be the full realisation of the galaxy he wanted to create. Poor guy is going to have some very sleepless nights ahead of him.

Modifié par Heeden, 05 juillet 2012 - 10:05 .

[Versus Omnibus]

Xilizhra wrote...

Is it "genocide" if the geth can be reconstructed later? Unless you mean the Reapers, which may be another noteworthy issue...

Is it "genocide" if I cloned humans back after they were all killed off? There's more to life then just the physical body.

[lillitheris]

Xilizhra wrote...

Is it "genocide" if the geth can be reconstructed later?

Yes, if they’re not the same persons anymore. It’s not particularly nice even if they are.

There’s no need to rationalize away the downsides.

[Xilizhra]

When I refer to the "genocide" inherent in Destroy I mean both the Geth and the Reapers. I do hold on to some hope that the Geth and EDI can be repaired, but completely killing every Reaper in order to win is a terrible, horrible price to pay.

An interesting notion. What do you see the Reapers as being, in their internal thought processes?
I don't disagree with you in that I'd prefer not to kill off all Reapers, but since every last one is engaged in trying to kill off advanced organic life, it's acceptable to kill any and all in self-defense. To me, at least.

Is it "genocide" if I cloned humans back after they were all killed off? There's more to life then just the physical body.

Remember how EDI was brought back even after being destroyed on Luna? This is more like the Lazarus Project than cloning, just easier because it's primarily software you're concerned with restoring (or, in the case of the geth, all software).

Yes, if they’re not the same persons anymore. It’s not particularly nice even if they are.

There’s no need to rationalize away the downsides.

I know it's not nice. I don't particularly like any of the endings; Destroy for these reasons, the others because Shepard dies and because I dislike the way they were presented.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 05 juillet 2012 - 10:08 .

[Versus Omnibus]

Xilizhra wrote...

Is it "genocide" if I cloned humans back after they were all killed off? There's more to life then just the physical body.

Remember how EDI was brought back even after being destroyed on Luna? This is more like the Lazarus Project than cloning, just easier because it's primarily software you're concerned with restoring (or, in the case of the geth, all software).

But the reason the Lazarus Project worked is because they recovered Shepard's original body; not one that was cloned. I doubt any of EDI's or the Geth's original programming survived after the Crucible fired. But that's just me.

[lillitheris]

[quote]DrZann wrote...

[quote]lillitheris wrote...

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]

You are incorrect, the consequences do not matter at all. I am examining the morality of the act and the intentions of the actor NOT the Consequences. Not the actual, imagined, hypothetical, intuited or other consequences. I am NOT seeking moral guidance from an examination of the consequences of an act but from the act itself. This is a deontological effort, not utilitarian.[/quote]

I had to check because I thought maybe I misrecalled. Deontology is morality derived of duty. Whence this duty (or ruleset)? As I said, Shepard’s clearest duty and ruleset is that of the CoC — who ordered the destruction of the Reapers.

I’d also argue that you can’t examine intentions without addressing the hypothetical consequences embedded in those intentions — since an ‘intention’ is “an agent's specific purpose in performing an action or series of actions, the end or goal that is aimed at.”

(The validity and correctness of the hypotheticals is a different matter.)

[quote][quote]lillitheris wrote...
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.
[/quote]

This does not make any logical sense. The change is part and parcel of Synthesis. An atomic transaction. You can't have one without the other. If you wish to avoid the genocide, subjugation or harvest of one or more life-forms than you must choose Synthesis. And if you choose Synthesis the change is not optional.[/quote]

That’s correct. I was merely trying to correct your apparent misunderstanding regarding my wording: the change in itself is unnecessary. That is to say, there is no need for the change by itself. It is only necessary as a component.

So, I’m not sure there’s a disagreement, just a terminology issue.

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

There are no degrees of morality. An act is either Immoral, Moral or Amoral. I was hoping Kant's categorial imperative would help me out here...[/quote]

The categorical imperative has never helped anyone.

[quote][quote]lillitheris wrote...
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]

Sure you can. The OP is an example of a comprehensible prediction. [/quote]

The OP is full of holes, many of them acknowledged. It’s a great effort, but unsuccessful.

[quote]
[quote]lillitheris wrote...[quote]DrZann wrote...
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]
I never said anything about Robo-Shep being corrupted.
[/quote]

You’ll use whatever your worst case baseline is.

Modifié par lillitheris, 05 juillet 2012 - 10:33 .

[saracen16]

[quote]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.[/quote]

New power will tend to corrupt, yes, but power requires that one be dominant over others. With synthesis, there is no relative increase in ability between individuals, but rather difference in ability. Sure, they may recognize their new ability, but others will keep them in check.


[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 can see that happenning with control, but not with synthesis where all, including the Reapers, are equal. The Reapers helped the rebuilding effort out of their own accord and pass the wisdom of ancient civilizations to us. They do not see us as slaves, resources, or children any more than we do see them as fathers and mentors.


[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]

The evidence is valid from what we know about the history of the universe. That evidence alone allows us to act on it, either to reject him or choose our future, a future free from the threat of the Reapers, which is the Shepard's goal.


[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. [/quote]

That's the law of averages, Uncle Jo. Cooperation is a given, but conflict is inevitable at any one point. What matters is that the clause of the Catalyst - that organics will create AI's capable of wiping them out is validated.


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

I'm not distrustful of AI's. I'm distrustful of both organics and AI's ever cooperating. It was the Quarians who started the Morning War out of fear of their machines gaining a consciousness of their own, which they were at around that time. Differences will always lead to conflict in one form or another, especially given the organics' self-assumed superiority or dominance over their synthetic underlings.


[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.[/quote]

A lot of Quarian and Geth blood was shed on both sides, with the ships inflicting heavy casualties to each other. Hope sustained them during the period of conflict, but hope is often the first step on the road to disappointment: we've seen that in Iraq after Saddam and other historically significant conflicts. Hope does not win wars.


[quote]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]

Hope is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of our greatest strength and weakness. Not everyone, however, can afford to live on hope alone.


[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]

The dalatrass's misconception was based on racism towards krogan more than anything, even though in fact it is part of their biology to grow and expand. Conflict was inevitable for them at the time of the Rebellions. However, the Catalyst's conclusion is based on fundamental differences between synthetics and organics, not on the synthetics or the organics themselves (i.e. not a racist conclusion).


[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.[/quote]

Right, and none of the choices are without sacrifice.


[quote]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. [/quote]

The Reapers do not reap for reaping's sake. They have a program, a goal in mind: to prevent the conflict between synthetics and organics and "maintain the peace". They do not share the same conceptions of life, I'll give you that, but they do hold life to be "precious" in their own twisted, night-marish way.

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

I agree. That's why I believe that the mass relays being destroyed in the original endings was actually a blessing, allowing civvies to evolve and achieve spaceflight and advanced tech their way.

[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]

Right, but that's not what I was arguing. What I was saying, however, was that the Catalyst's condition for the cycle to initiate is that the organic civilizations are at a point where they are capable of creating AI that can wipe them out. All we know are histories separated by 50,000-year intervals. We still do not know what will happen if the cycle's intervals were longer.

[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 call back the Reapers, not to become overlord of the Citadel.

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

[i][b]"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.[/quote]

That's a given: they make more Reapers. However, their goals are not that incomprehensible: they harvest advanced civvies to protect them from synthetic and organic conflict. They don't take a particular pleasure in what they do, but they must do it.

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

They've been a part of this galaxy's past. Hell, they shaped the galaxy. It is inevitable that they will play a role in the future, whether alive or dead.

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

I would have, but I do not believe that the absence of such a risk supercedes the benefits that synthesis provides the galaxy with.

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

What do you mean?

[quote]Edit: My point, exactly. What was the point then to create the Reapers, if their solution was even worse than the given problem ?[/quote]

The solution ensures that organic civilizations as a WHOLE don't die off completely. Granted, they do some killing in the procress, but that is not how they see it.

[quote]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]

But aren't these choices worth ending the Reaper threat? If it means living in a future without the threat of the Reapers that we face right now? I belive they all do.

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

I can't wait.

[SITHDUKE]

lillitheris wrote...

SpectreVeldt wrote...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.

Please post a quote where you claim SpectreVeldt compared themself to Ieldra2. Any money you can't, and do you want to know why? Because SpectreVeldt never once compared themself to Ieldra2. You're putting words in their mouth because you can't actually seem to retort to any of SpectreVeldt's requests.

lillitheris wrote...

SpectreVeldt wrote...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.

You're clutching at straws. After reading all of this thread...you have yet to post anything other than your opinion(stated as fact by you); yet constantly demand everybody else give you irrefutable proof. You really need to take a step back and look at how hypocritical you're being. 

lillitheris wrote...

Heeden wrote...

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

[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/pinched.png[/smilie]

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.

How can you ask us to weigh the implications of such a huge decision without considering the 'actual' consequences? The consequences of our decision is the only thing we have to help us make the decision. I don't understand how you can ask someone to consider the consequences, and yet make a distinction for the actual outcome of the decision. The actual consequences are the only thing that matters in this decision. Nobody thinks "I might die if I do this...but it's only my imagination! Maybe I will actually live!". It's like you want us to imagine what we think the actual consequences will be and disregard them in favour of fake consequences.

Modifié par SITHDUKE, 06 juillet 2012 - 12:39 .

[Enthalpy]

Slakky wrote...
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.

I agree with you; there is no way Shepard could have known the exact extent of the Catalyst's control, nor the behaviour of any Reaper in an uncontrolled state. However, Sovereign, Harginger, and the Rannoch Reaper have all shown some kind of individuality (Harbinger being marked in its stupidity) in interacting with Shepard, so I think the leap of faith is slightly smaller than if Shepard had to go on the Catalyst's words alone.

Also, my personal hopes (not beliefs) lay with the ability of the Reapers to be non-malevolent (rather than benevolent) post-synthesis. A laissez-faire attitude on both sides without infringement of rights, rather than any sort of cooperation. I think the ending overdid it, too.

Slakky 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.

Pretty much this.

[Taboo]

Looking at all the animals out here on vacation makes me laugh at the whole "one organism" thing. You and a shiatsu are now the same.

And a giraffe. And a gazelle.

But you're alive, so don't worry about it.

I can't even take it seriously. This came out of nowhere. It has nothing to do with Saren or Sovreign. It's some sort of benign Hegellian resolution included for an idealist who has no idea what the **** he's doing with the thing he's creating.

Someone at Bioware is VERY well read, but I don't this was Mac Walters doing.

[SpectreVeldt]

Okay, I'm going to just break down your 'arguments' for you, Lillitheris, in addition to your actual interactions with everyone else.  You garner most people's attention, whether by random reply or repeated responses, and interaction with you leads to nowhere.  So, let's break out the popcorn!

Assumptions and Opinions stated as Fact

[quote]lillitheris wrote...
[quote]Actual consequences are irrelevant.[/quote][quote]The body is irrelevant.[/quote][quote]Synthesis works somehow. The details are irrelevant.[/quote][quote]I’ve made two very clear points, one of which is that empiricism has nothing to do with the moral question (it happens after the question and is therefore irrelevant).[/quote][quote]Oh. Goddess. The epilogue is irrelevant.[/quote][quote]You are incapable of making an educated decision on its benefits ahead of time.[/quote][quote]I would be interested in the scientific aspect, but it doesn’t exist.[/quote][quote]Each of the other options have clearly stated effects. Synthesis doesn't.[/quote][quote]And I said that that (“do ends justify the means?”) is the wrong question, which it is.[/quote][/quote]
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
The details [concerning identity] thereof must be defined, yes[/quote]And yet . . . 
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
I don’t think [identity] needs redefinition.[/quote]And this last one is particularly amusing, considering you were concerned about a "new level of consciousness," which would probably figure a lot into one's identity.


[quote]lillitheris wrote...
[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
Control is the least worst act -- and certainly the most conservative one.[/quote]Also you assume that the most conservative choice is the best one.[/quote]…I did say that it was the most conservative one. Using that exact word.[/quote]And just noting that your last answer does not even remotely address Ieldra.  "Least worst" denotes "best," as Ieldra stated.  It's like you're lost.


This last one is funny:
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
I don’t really assume much…[/quote]

Ignoring or Deeming Everyone Else's Arguments as Irrelevant (Even, or especially, when it is relevant)

[quote]Ieldra2 wrote... (to lillitheris)
And you keep ignoring the new exposition and act as if nothing has changed from the pre-EC times.[/quote]
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
[quote]You’re welcome to ‘foster logical discussion’ about the other aspects of Synthesis. I don’t care about those[/quote][quote]I don’t know where you’re coming up with this ‘biochemical purity’ nonsense.[/quote][quote]I have no interest in your hypotheses about what Synthesis could perhaps be.[/quote][quote]Also, f— everything about themes. Life doesn’t have themes.[/quote][quote]Additionally, the whole idea is so utterly ridiculous that I do not draw any intellectual satisfaction inventing some fantasy explanation for it because I’m not solving an actual problem.[/quote][quote]But, again, I don’t care. You’ve convinced yourself that these particular unicorns are what you get. You’re welcome to that, I really have nothing further to add to this part of the discussion.[/quote][quote]I have no interest in arguing about what is and isn’t thematic.[/quote][quote]You’re welcome to talk about how themes might or might not apply. I’m not interested in that, either.[/quote][quote]If you do wish to address my points, do so. If you wish to address some other points that I’m not interested in, do that.[/quote][/quote]
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
I suggest to take the endings in the spirit they come across and not act like a Biblical literalist.[/quote]No. Just…no. That would be a completely pointless discussion. You’re welcome to it, but I have no interest.[/quote]  
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
[quote]SpectreVeldt wrote...
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
All I want is that you provide me a comprehensible framework of this new level of consciousness[/quote]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.[/quote]No, I don’t.[/quote] 
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
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]And yet I have provided precisely this in my own thread, in addition to this thread's OP.


[quote]lillitheris wrote...
[quote]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 [predictions].[/quote][quote]I have no interest in your hypotheses about what Synthesis could perhaps be [once again, predictions][/quote][quote]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 [prediction]. I am not interested in that.[/quote][/quote]All of these describe predictions.  You are simply content to ignore it, and everything else.


Continued Assumptions and Contradictions

You specify the importance of understanding the implications and consequences of Synthesis in order to make an educated decision:
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
How does it affect our thought processes?  How can it not affect minds if it's actually reconfiguring basic biology?  All you have for the real ends is conjecture. That’s fine in itself, and you may find pleasure in mapping those possibilities out in your theories…but it’s irresponsible to select such an option without a firm understanding of the implications.[/quote]
But then you go on to say:
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
Actual consequences are irrelevant.[/quote]
Going into this further...
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
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.[/quote]
As opposed to what - fake consequences?

consequence [ˈkɒnsɪkwəns]
n
1. a result or effect of an action or condition.
2. a result or effect of some previous occurence.
3. a conclusion reached by reasoning.

Additionally, decisions are made based on potential consequences.  Nobody has precognition.  Why on earth would you suggest that the only way anyone can make a decision is if they could see the future?  Humans make decisions
all the time.  And consequences are a major aspect of that.  (See different dictionary definitions above.)

What you're saying makes absolute zero sense.  You're saying that consequences don't matter when we make a decision "because they have not happened yet," when that is the only type of consequence we deal with when making decisions.  If we're making a decision, we base it off what we think the negative or positive consequences will be.  When we talk of consequences that have already occurred, there is no decision to be made!
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
[quote]My problem is that  I do not believe the actual ends (the reality of the end result, and the effects that are needed to get to it) are described in a manner  that is comprehensible. That is, there is no logical path from here to the utopia*. This means that I cannot make an educated decision on its merits.[/quote][quote]And I said that that (“do ends justify the means?”) is the wrong question, which it is.[/quote][/quote]Haven't you been discussing the significance of the ends and whether or not we can make an educated decision?  You yourself have continuously stated that you are discussing the "morality" of the decision.

As was so aptly phrased:
[quote]SithDuke wrote...
You state, "it’s irresponsible to select such an option without a firm understanding of the implications."  But you also diminish the significance of conjecture based on an analytical process, through which we may actually gain a "firm understanding of the implications."

"Mapping those possibilities out" is how we further educate ourselves regarding the implications.  You are
telling everyone here that we need a "firm understanding of the implications," but we shouldn't even TRY to reach that understanding by any means.[/quote]
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
[quote]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.[/quote][quote]You're welcome to 'foster logical discussion' about the other aspects of Synthesis.[/quote][quote]I specified that whatever other detail there may be to know about Synthesis is irrelevant.[/quote][/quote]You operate under the assumption that we cannot possibly understand the ending and/or make an informed decision, even challenging others to provide you with evidence, are presented with evidence to the contrary, and yet also state that such evidence and implications are "irrelevant," and therefore, we cannot possibly understand the ending and/or make an informed decision.  Horrible circular logic.

[quote]lillitheris wrote...
I want to deconstruct one thing. The choice. And every single one of you is dancing around it, whatever your excuse is.[/quote]We have all been, in different ways, trying to deconstruct choice, i.e., making a decision, which is made based on potential consequences--breaking down the implications surrounding the choice.  You've been ignoring every single person.


Utilization of Strawman Fallacy

Just going to name three because the vast majority of your posts are riddled with these:
[quote]SpectreVeldt wrote...
You took it upon yourself to provide me with my own arguments and ideas and then it was like watching someone argue with themself (post after post).[/quote][quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
And please stop telling me what I think. It's an extremely annoying habit of yours. [/quote][quote]DrZann wrote...
I never said anything about Robo-Shep being corrupted.[/quote]

Modifié par SpectreVeldt, 06 juillet 2012 - 01:53 .

[Enthalpy]

Slakky wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
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.

Interesting thoughts all around. I hypothesize that, since the geth and, by extension, synthetics, are deduced to be immune to indoctrination (they followed Sovereign of their own free will), post-synthesis organics would gain some resistance solely because of their changed nature. The change being not at all related to any behavioral alteration on the part of the Reapers.

I am not so certain about the nanotechnology. You would think that the Cerberus scientists would have taken precautions against that (hazmat suits, clean rooms, etc.) Also, Manuel the scientist and the captured salarians on Virmire did not appear to have nanotech contamination. I think the more dangerous part of indoctrination is the radiation, since it is apparently more difficult to shield. It could just happen that "mental links" are still established when a Reaper is in effective range, but because of a) Reapers no longer requiring mindless servants and organics' new resistance, these "links" are only used for communication instead. Nanotech is certainly an option when considering "links" in abscence of Reaper.

[Enthalpy]

Versus Omnibus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Remember how EDI was brought back even after being destroyed on Luna? This is more like the Lazarus Project than cloning, just easier because it's primarily software you're concerned with restoring (or, in the case of the geth, all software).

But the reason the Lazarus Project worked is because they recovered Shepard's original body; not one that was cloned. I doubt any of EDI's or the Geth's original programming survived after the Crucible fired. But that's just me.

I think you are right. We see the Reapers toppling over, as if they'd suddenly lost all feedback control for balancing. We do not see them detonating. If there was any physical destruction involved, it was contained by their outer shells. This effectively rules out damage to their eezo cores. The Normandy did not appear to suffer damage equivalent to the AI core breaking down. I think something along the lines of a memory wipe could have happened.

Although, the husks were vaporized in the blast. Thoughts?

[His Name was HYR!!]

rofl @ SpectreVeldt.


On the topic of RP'ing Sheps, I have several, and they are also all over the place with the ending. None of them would refuse, though.

I've got: 1 Synthesis, 2 Control (one for good, one for lulz), 2 Destroy, and 1 whose story ends with getting shot by TIM (and ultimately, the Reapers probably win). All ends fitting their character.

[Welsh Inferno]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

rofl @ SpectreVeldt.

On the topic of RP'ing Sheps, I have several, and they are also all over the place with the ending. None of them would refuse, though.

I've got: 1 Synthesis, 2 Control (one for good, one for lulz), 2 Destroy, and 1 whose story ends with getting shot by TIM (and ultimately, the Reapers probably win). All ends fitting their character.

You've managed to play through with six Shepards already?! Or are you just planning ahead? I have nine Shepards in total and I'v only been through with my canon-Shep so far.. 

Looking at the personality's of my Shep's i'm thinking two of them will pick Synthesis, three for Control, two for Destroy & the last two if I get around to playing them, i'll just wing it and see what I feel like at the end  

Enthalpy wrote...

Versus Omnibus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Remember how EDI was brought back even after being destroyed on Luna? This is more like the Lazarus Project than cloning, just easier because it's primarily software you're concerned with restoring (or, in the case of the geth, all software).

But the reason the Lazarus Project worked is because they recovered Shepard's original body; not one that was cloned. I doubt any of EDI's or the Geth's original programming survived after the Crucible fired. But that's just me.

I think you are right. We see the Reapers toppling over, as if they'd suddenly lost all feedback control for balancing. We do not see them detonating. If there was any physical destruction involved, it was contained by their outer shells. This effectively rules out damage to their eezo cores. The Normandy did not appear to suffer damage equivalent to the AI core breaking down. I think something along the lines of a memory wipe could have happened.

Although, the husks were vaporized in the blast. Thoughts?

 

That's along the lines of what I always saw happening too. There certainly doesn't seem to be any kind of internal destruction involved. EDI & the Geth and all their hubs should suffer the same fate as that of the Reapers. Or its logically what should happen. I don't really like it when people try to rosey up the destroy ending by headcanoning that they live, well aslong as it stays up there its fine I guess.

RE husks: I'm tempted to say it was just BW being artistic...  Although if I were to come up with a more logical answer i'd speculate that maybe the Husks are vaporized because of something to do with their connection to the Reaper ships being severed. With their connection severed, if they were not vaporized they would still be mindless husks now wandering without any directive from a Reaper. Other than that I don't really know..

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 06 juillet 2012 - 08:41 .

[Ieldra]

Enthalpy wrote...

Versus Omnibus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Remember how EDI was brought back even after being destroyed on Luna? This is more like the Lazarus Project than cloning, just easier because it's primarily software you're concerned with restoring (or, in the case of the geth, all software).

But the reason the Lazarus Project worked is because they recovered Shepard's original body; not one that was cloned. I doubt any of EDI's or the Geth's original programming survived after the Crucible fired. But that's just me.

I think you are right. We see the Reapers toppling over, as if they'd suddenly lost all feedback control for balancing. We do not see them detonating. If there was any physical destruction involved, it was contained by their outer shells. This effectively rules out damage to their eezo cores. The Normandy did not appear to suffer damage equivalent to the AI core breaking down. I think something along the lines of a memory wipe could have happened.

Although, the husks were vaporized in the blast. Thoughts?

How this came to pass? Here's what I think:

Artist: We need an explosion.
Writer: An explosion strong enough to kill Reapers would destroy Earth.
Artist: Well, then we use a weaker one to kill all the minions, and just let the Reapers topple over
Writer: So...how will they be killed if the soldiers are to survive?
Artist: Does it matter? The Crucible did it.
Writer: But then we don't need an explosion. It's more believable anyway that the minions topple over as well to be killed by the soldiers. Less damage to the environment, too.
Artist: We can't let this game end without a big explosion, so that's what will happen.
Writer: ...

Anyway, as I see it, Destroy will destroy the Reapers' minds and the synthetics' irrecoverably with some kind of memory wipe. IMO the husks are controlled by a Reaper's mind and would also topple over or at least become inactive somehow, only they don't get the chance.

As opposed to that, in Lazarus, Shepard's brain was recovered intact. It's a stretch to believe that much could be recovered from it after having been braindead, but perhaps it was frozen fast enough or Shepard carried a greybox without knowing it. Anyway, the information that made up his personality survived.

@SpectreVeldt:
:lol: You win! Thanks for the effort.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 juillet 2012 - 08:46 .

[Ieldra]

Enthalpy wrote...

Slakky wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
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.

Interesting thoughts all around. I hypothesize that, since the geth and, by extension, synthetics, are deduced to be immune to indoctrination (they followed Sovereign of their own free will), post-synthesis organics would gain some resistance solely because of their changed nature. The change being not at all related to any behavioral alteration on the part of the Reapers.

From the description, I gather that organics' changed nature itself (the "altered matrix") doesn't have anything specifically synthetic. It just enables them to integrate technology. So I think that if it's the "part synthetic" aspect that provides protection, then it's the integrated technology.

I am not so certain about the nanotechnology. You would think that the Cerberus scientists would have taken precautions against that (hazmat suits, clean rooms, etc.) Also, Manuel the scientist and the captured salarians on Virmire did not appear to have nanotech contamination. I think the more dangerous part of indoctrination is the radiation, since it is apparently more difficult to shield. It could just happen that "mental links" are still established when a Reaper is in effective range, but because of a) Reapers no longer requiring mindless servants and organics' new resistance, these "links" are only used for communication instead. Nanotech is certainly an option when considering "links" in abscence of Reaper.

Your explanation sounds very plausible. I'd like to mention, though, that you don't necessarily notice an infection by hostile nanotech. The nanotech came in as part of indoctrination with ME:Retribution, and Cerberus scientists looked for it on the derelict Reaper without finding any, which lead Dr.Chandana to the assumption the derelict Reaper was safe. I think we can interpret this either way: either the nanotech was too elusive to find or the Reapers don't need any to indoctrinate. I tend to the former, though, because if Reapers could indoctrinate at will just by emitting that radiation, they would've done it more during the war. I recall how they invited leaders on Earth to "negotiations". Anyway, however this is achieved, I agree that the same faculties formerly used to indoctrinate are probably used to communicate now, and that both sides have control about whether they want to establish a connection and how deep this connection gets on their side.

[lillitheris]

SITHDUKE wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

SpectreVeldt wrote...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.

Please post a quote where you claim SpectreVeldt compared themself to Ieldra2. Any money you can't, and do you want to know why? Because SpectreVeldt never once compared themself to Ieldra2. You're putting words in their mouth because you can't actually seem to retort to any of SpectreVeldt's requests.

SV said that they had given a complete accounting for a framework to completely understand Synthesis (or so I read it since if SV were to admit it’s not possible, they’d be agreeing with me). That is more than this thread here can purport to do (or tries to).

So, yes, I found it a rather arrogant statement, and was not the least surprised to find that SV’s thread does absolutely no such thing. It’s pseudophilosophical babble through and through. Somewhat interesting pseudophilosophical babble, but that nonetheless.

lillitheris wrote...

SpectreVeldt wrote...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.

You're clutching at straws. After reading all of this thread...you have yet to post anything other than your opinion(stated as fact by you); yet constantly demand everybody else give you irrefutable proof. You really need to take a step back and look at how hypocritical you're being.

You should probably have read the explanation. A new level of consciousness is claimed. If it isn’t something that is incomprehensible to this level of consciousness, then it’s a moot change.

This is simple logic. You’re welcome to disagree with the definition, but I do expect you offer some kind of rationale for it.

lillitheris wrote...

Heeden wrote...

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

[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/pinched.png[/smilie]

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.

How can you ask us to weigh the implications of such a huge decision without considering the 'actual' consequences? The consequences of our decision is the only thing we have to help us make the decision.

This is why I think judgments are clouded; there is nothing mystical about what I said, and it should in fact be abundantly clear. Here, let me illustrate:

Plan: Go buy ice cream now because it might rain later.
Expected consequence: I will have ice cream, and won’t be wet.
Actual consequence: I get hit by a bus on the way.

The actual consequences are irrelevant to the decision, because they haven’t happened yet. You can’t see into the future.The best you can do is to try to account for them to the degree that you can reason about them.

In the context of the game, this simply means that you cannot use anything that happens after the decision as proof.

You can take shots in the dark about what Synthesis might eventually do, but that’s all they are. Even then it has been proven time and again in this very thread that some aspects of Synthesis can only be explained by magic, and some of its consequences can only be understood after they’ve been enacted.

Therefore, it is not possible to make an educated decision. If you wish to challenge this assertion, then you must prove that all aspects of Synthesis are, in fact, comprehensible to Shepard.

Now, you can take the “leap of faith” to go into it blind and steal everyone’s right to self-determination to enact Synthesis. It’s possible to do. It is, however, not the right thing to do.

Modifié par lillitheris, 06 juillet 2012 - 10:03 .

[lillitheris]

[quote]SpectreVeldt wrote...

[quote]lillitheris wrote...
The details [concerning identity] thereof must be defined, yes[/quote]And yet . . . 
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
I don’t think [identity] needs redefinition.[/quote]And this last one is particularly amusing, considering you were concerned about a "new level of consciousness," which would probably figure a lot into one's identity.[/quote]

Correct, it would. And that’s a problem when someone tries to argue that Synthesis doesn’t actually change who you are.

Here’s what I actually said, by the way, and in context since you like removing things from context:

[quote]
[quote]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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]

This is, once again, very simple English: the details of what we perceive as ‘identity’ will need to be explained and accounted in detail when upload technology exists. ‘Identity’ does not need to be redefined (=its definition changed, for example to ‘as long as it behaves the same, it’s the same’). The physical body — as separated from all that constitutes the mind — is an incidental so long as those aspects are replicated or found unnecessary.

Really. Very simple and straightforward statement.

[quote][quote]lillitheris wrote...
[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
Control is the least worst act -- and certainly the most conservative one.[/quote]Also you assume that the most conservative choice is the best one.[/quote]…I did say that it was the most conservative one. Using that exact word.[/quote]And just noting that your last answer does not even remotely address Ieldra.  "Least worst" denotes "best," as Ieldra stated.  It's like you're lost.[/quote]

Control is the most conservative one. It is also the least worst of the choices. In large part, but not solely, because it is the most conservative.

Here’s where you start stringing strictly unrelated statements together. It’s no wonder you have a hard time understanding things.

[quote]Ieldra2 wrote... (to lillitheris)
And you keep ignoring the new exposition and act as if nothing has changed from the pre-EC times.[/quote]

I ignore the portions that happen post-decision, yes. Not the portions previous to it which, by the way, still include things like “new DNA”. It should not need to be noted, but I will note it anyway:

Even the new exposition does not explain Synthesis. Not even with the epilogue.

[quote]lillitheris wrote...[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
I suggest to take the endings in the spirit they come across and not act like a Biblical literalist.[/quote]No. Just…no. That would be a completely pointless discussion. You’re welcome to it, but I have no interest.[/quote]

When this discussion becomes about metaphors rather than the actual reality, it’s not interesting to me.  ‘Spirit’ and ‘themes’ are narration, not the reality in RP.


[quote][quote]lillitheris wrote...
[quote]SpectreVeldt wrote...
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
All I want is that you provide me a comprehensible framework of this new level of consciousness[/quote]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.[/quote]No, I don’t.[/quote] 
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
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]And yet I have provided precisely this in my own thread, in addition to this thread's OP.[/quote]

No, you have not. Let me be excessively clear, since you keep twisting around like a leaf in the wind:

Are you claiming that you have laid out a comprehensive framework to understand all aspects of Synthesis?

You have not done so. If you disagree, please actually state the framework rather than wave toward ‘your own thread’ which does no such thing.

This thread, and none of the other ones in the OP of this thread, does not provide anything remotely comprehensive. I’d even settle for something that uses the epilogue fill all the holes, but it doesn’t. All the threads leave some aspects of Synthesis as ‘magic’, which is also why the arguments about ‘spirit’ and ‘themes’ keep getting trotted out.

If you’re happy debating the ‘spirit’ or ‘themes’, by all means. Debating one headcanon against another is occasinally fun, but ultimately fruitless.

Game. As it is. No more, no less.

[quote]You specify the importance of understanding the implications and consequences of Synthesis in order to make an educated decision:
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
How does it affect our thought processes?  How can it not affect minds if it's actually reconfiguring basic biology?  All you have for the real ends is conjecture. That’s fine in itself, and you may find pleasure in mapping those possibilities out in your theories…but it’s irresponsible to select such an option without a firm understanding of the implications.[/quote]
But then you go on to say:
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
Actual consequences are irrelevant.[/quote][/quote]

This is exactly correct. The actual consequences (see the post above) are irrelevant. The potential consequences are not.

The problem is that you cannot make sufficient predictions about potential consequences about Synthesis because of its inherent nature.

[quote][quote]
[quote]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.[/quote][quote]You're welcome to 'foster logical discussion' about the other aspects of Synthesis.[/quote][quote]I specified that whatever other detail there may be to know about Synthesis is irrelevant.[/quote][/quote]You operate under the assumption that we cannot possibly understand the ending [/quote]

No, I operate under the assumption that you cannot possibly understand Synthesis until after it’s been enacted. I, and others, have shown the multitude of holes in all the theories. The authors of the theories admit that all of Synthesis cannot be explained. It is also the case that, apparently, you can’t understand it even after that (i.e. when incorporating info from the epilogue).

If you wish to challenge that assumption, then you should fill in those holes.

If you are able to do so, then you have enough information to plot out the potential consequences.

Even in that case, the actual consequences are irrelevant.

[quote][quote]lillitheris wrote...
I want to deconstruct one thing. The choice. And every single one of you is dancing around it, whatever your excuse is.[/quote]We have all been, in different ways, trying to deconstruct choice, i.e., making a decision, which is made based on potential consequences--breaking down the implications surrounding the choice.  You've been ignoring every single person.[/quote]

No. It’s just that none of you have actually succeeded in creating a framework from which the potential consequences can be drawn. Because it’s not possible.

I eagerly await you to prove me wrong on the last count. I really do. You’ve not actually even tried yet, though.

Don’t get me wrong, I see that you have tried to get that process going. That’s admirable, but not a result.

When I say I don’t care about your process to lay out this framework, I mean it. I’ve tried, it doesn’t work. You should go ahead and try — it’s just that I don’t accept “I’m working on it” as an answer. Get back to me when you’re done and when you have a result.

Modifié par lillitheris, 06 juillet 2012 - 10:26 .