9089 réponses à ce sujet

[DrZann]

Ieldra2 wrote...
This is the reason why I think deontological moral principles are mostly irrelevant when making a decision on this scale. As I see it, the future you are giving the galaxy with your decision trumps all other moral considerations. If you think decision X (insert any) gives the best future for the galaxy, then you are obliged to make that decision, and if you must dirty your hands by doing it, that's just another sacrifice you must make.

I don't think that's true. What a system of ethics provides is a coherent view of the ethical considerations of actions. It makes the landscape a little less confused. I don't think moral consideration should be easily dismissed.

But I don't just plan on examining this from the eyes of deontology alone. After I figure out a way to stuff Synth into the categorical imperative I was going to try Bernard Gert's ethical system on for size. Maybe Nietzsche, I'm sure he's a Control supporter.

[DrZann]

lillitheris wrote...

I’m a firm believer in personal liberty. This has two aspects:

1. You’re free to do whatever you please;
2. So long as it does not harm or restrict others.

...

I'll remember this.

[RiouHotaru]

Flog61 wrote...

Can we just agree that synthesis forces evolution into a path it wouldn't have taken by itself, removing the validity of calling it evolution?

No.  There's no way to say the evolution couldn't have gone that route on it's own, or that synthesis wasn't an eventual outcome in the first place.

[dbkkk]

Flog61 wrote...

Can we just agree that synthesis forces evolution into a path it wouldn't have taken by itself, removing the validity of calling it evolution?

Not evolution via natural selection. Agreed. But that argument is clearly for Control as well.

But natural selection will barely affect human evolution going forwards unless we regress significantly (i.e. post apocalypse, etc.) Evolution of humanity will be driven by design choices at first via bioengineering, later by who knows what.

Of course the writers' mechanism of altering biological DNA into some other technologically intertwined substrate via 'dark energy' space magic is ummm ... kind of silly.

Let us not forget in the Syntehsis ending, synthetics will have their 'information' encoded mathematically in some sort of solid state or quantum system so how that can be altered to give them 'understanding' is ummm ... kind of weird to say the least.

But hey everyone gets green eyes!

[RiouHotaru]

Organics becoming something else other than organics isn't outside the realm of possibility. Does evolution account for cybernetics or augmentation?

[Chashan]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Organics becoming something else other than organics isn't outside the realm of possibility. Does evolution account for cybernetics or augmentation?

Likely already addressed, but:

augmentation and cybernetics are products of scientific invention, something that can be achieved on our own. No need to force-feed it to the entirety of the galaxy therefore, the existence and diversity of which makes reaching that state without outside help even more likely.

Hell, far as I recall Salarian ingenuity already made cyborganic existence to the effect of Synthesis possible in certain cases.

Modifié par Chashan, 10 juillet 2012 - 08:54 .

[lillitheris]

Pacifien wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
So, in summary, no: fear of the unknown is not the problem most people have with Synthesis. Empathy is.

Empathy is a reason to choose Synthesis. It forces understanding. Forces organics to operate as synthetic. Forces synthetics to understand the universe as an organic would. It forces those who cannot see from your point of view to see your point of view, thus creating empathy.

One could argue that forced empathy is a false empathy, as in it being undeserved and, thus, without merit. That doesn't necessarily make it fake empathy.

I’m not talking about the end-result. Everybody gaining an understanding of eachother? Great.

Forcing an unknown change on everybody — and thus ignoring their position right now — in the hopes that it will do that? Not OK.

And think about all the discussions you've ever had on the internet where you become frustrated and wonder why the opposing side just can't understand what you're trying to say. Take the sociopolitical commentary where you wish someone could just empathize with someone who is different. Synthesis isn't about making everyone the same, it's about giving everyone the ability to understand. You don't have to agree, you just have to understand and feel where the other person is coming from.

I prefer this way.

It is, however, forced. That I agree with. I believe in personal liberty to a point, and I will admit that the fact that Mass Effect is a game makes me less inclined to defend it to my dying breath.

Right. I think the discussion is mostly meaningless if you don’t consider the situation to be ‘real’.

[lillitheris]

Heeden wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

No, this muddles the issue. Synthesis is never going to be “for you”. It’s for everybody.

I’m a firm believer in personal liberty. This has two aspects:

1. You’re free to do whatever you please;
2. So long as it does not harm or restrict others.

I'm guessing from that you didn't choose destroy or control.

One must choose. None of the options are good, but Control, in particular, has the ability to rectify the downsides, which none of the others do to the same degree. From a moral standpoint, Control > Destroy > Synthesis > Refuse.

Of course, Shepard’s just a weak human which is what brings me to my thesis about the price of avoiding sacrifice.

[lillitheris]

DrZann wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
Please don’t try to handwave this…you said that deontologically, Refuse makes sense. This means that there is some ruleset, or some source of duty, which explains why this is the case. What is it? Where does it come from?

This is a more interesting question. Refuse is a morally permissible choice because Shepard only has responsibility for his own actions, not the actions of others. Not the actions of the Reapers, not the actions of the Catalyst. This is not true with the other three options.

I see what you’re saying. As I said, it’s kind of self-serving and thus pointless, but I understand your argument.

That is still, however, a particular philosophical system — which is fine, but it’s not quite the same as using the blanket term of deontological philosophy.

Shepard is a soldier, and has been given orders to stop the Reapers. The most obvious duty is to do so.

We are not talking about the duty of a soldier but the duty of a rational agent. It's doing the right thing for the right reason, because it is the right thing to do. Not murdering someone because you are afraid you'll get caught is not the same as not murdering someone because it's your duty not to murder people.

And intentionally allowing someone to be murdered is the same as doing it yourself.

Why is it the right thing to do? Is the rule ‘never do anything someone suggests you do’?

So, you’d need to give some kind of a reason as to why the exact opposite of that is, in your view, the better option.

I never said it was a better option.

I was under the impression that you argued that Refuse was the best option considering from this deontological point of view. If I was mistaken, I’m sorry.

[lillitheris]

Flog61 wrote...

There is no evidence of the actual use of electricity in human bodies by natural evolution.

…

Trust me, a biologist; it will never happen naturally

Wait, sorry, you as a biologist are arguing that the human body does not use electricity? Eugh.

…

Also, you as a biologist should understand that evolution is about the past…not the future.

[Abraham_uk]

Flog61 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Flog61 wrote...

There is no evidence of the actual use of wire based electricital circuits in human bodies by natural evolution.

…

Trust me, a biologist; it will never happen naturally

Wait, sorry, you as a biologist are arguing that the human body does not use electricity? Eugh.

…

Also, you as a biologist should understand that evolution is about the past…not the future.

I meant continuous electrical circuits. Obviously nerve impulses are electric, bt no way could get get to the point at which there are glowing green circuits on the surface of our skin which actually do anything to help us.

It is forced evolution. True. But think of it as upgrading every life form. As a biologist doesn't a cure to a large number of previously thought of incurable diseases tickle your fancy? Isn't that the direction modern science is taking anyway. Synthetic organs. Synthetic limbs? How is synthesis any different?

The only difference is that people agree to those surgical procedures. But no one agreed to synthesis. Because no one had the chance to agree or disagree with it.

[Pacifien]

lillitheris wrote...
Forcing an unknown change on everybody — and thus ignoring their position right now — in the hopes that it will do that? Not OK.

In another post, you said something that I didn't respond to at the time "Except for the mind control that makes me think it’s the best thing ever, of course." Which is a sentiment I've seen frequently for those who argue against Synthesis, I think because the epilogue from EDI depicts a utopia.

I'm assuming the sentiment comes from the fact that it's because you cannot fathom agreeing with Synthesis beforehand, so you cannot fathom continuing to agree with it after it occurs. If we take the you out of the equation and look at those shown in EDI's epilogue, those are the people who apparently reached the understanding that Synthesis was supposed to give. Those are the ones who are okay with it.

It does remind me of Jack's "better die as me" comment if you take her along to Legion's loyalty mission in Mass Effect 2. In fact, I see a lot of parallels to the whole decision of whether or not to integrate the Heretics into the rest of the Geth, as one of Legion's arguments for doing so was specifically about gaining their understanding, to see their perspective.

lillitheris wrote...
Right. I think the discussion is mostly meaningless if you don’t consider the situation to be ‘real’.

I *have* to approach the situation like that. When people are accusing others of supporting war crimes, when people are saying that by altering one aspect, you aren't you anymore, those are things that hit home personally. I mean, really personally. I enjoy the thought exercise.

[lillitheris]

Pacifien wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
Forcing an unknown change on everybody — and thus ignoring their position right now — in the hopes that it will do that? Not OK.

In another post, you said something that I didn't respond to at the time "Except for the mind control that makes me think it’s the best thing ever, of course." Which is a sentiment I've seen frequently for those who argue against Synthesis, I think because the epilogue from EDI depicts a utopia.

I'm assuming the sentiment comes from the fact that it's because you cannot fathom agreeing with Synthesis beforehand, so you cannot fathom continuing to agree with it after it occurs. If we take the you out of the equation and look at those shown in EDI's epilogue, those are the people who apparently reached the understanding that Synthesis was supposed to give. Those are the ones who are okay with it.

We don’t know if those people have been changed in some way to think that they’re OK with it. The issue isn’t so much the agreement, it’s that such a fundamental change is unlikely to leave minds untouched — and there’s no way of telling beforehand (or necessarily even after the fact) what may have changed.

lillitheris wrote...
Right. I think the discussion is mostly meaningless if you don’t consider the situation to be ‘real’.

I *have* to approach the situation like that. When people are accusing others of supporting war crimes, when people are saying that by altering one aspect, you aren't you anymore, those are things that hit home personally. I mean, really personally. I enjoy the thought exercise.

A thought exercise that only goes halfway isn’t, really. I’m not saying that you should feel terrible about yourself — it is only a game — but I think that if you’re not actually putting yourself fully in that situation, your understanding thereof would be incomplete.

That is, I hope, why so many Synthesis supporters seem so cavalier about “taking the leap”. It’s a much easier decision if you are just thinking about it from your perspective; as if it just affected you.

Modifié par lillitheris, 10 juillet 2012 - 11:30 .

[Ieldra]

@Pacifien:
Please note that it's the anti-Synthesis faction who says that. As a Synthesis supporter, it is important for me that Synthesis doesn't make you any less you than you were before. You simply have a few additional options for your life. Your perspectives may change over time because of that, but immediately after Synthesis, you are...you. Just as Jacob says about Shepard: "You may have a few extra bits and pieces, but you're still you." The changes may be one level up in technology from Lazarus-style augmentations, even if they're probably much less extensive, but I don't have the slightest idea why Synthesis shouldn't work the same way.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 10 juillet 2012 - 11:34 .

[dbkkk]

Flog61 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Flog61 wrote...

There is no evidence of the actual use of wire based electricital circuits in human bodies by natural evolution.

…

Trust me, a biologist; it will never happen naturally

Wait, sorry, you as a biologist are arguing that the human body does not use electricity? Eugh.

…

Also, you as a biologist should understand that evolution is about the past…not the future.

I meant continuous electrical circuits. Obviously nerve impulses are electric, bt no way could get get to the point at which there are glowing green circuits on the surface of our skin which actually do anything to help us.

Sound reasoning, but you are basing this on a DNA substrate. I admit it is hard to imagine some "unfied information substrate" that carries the blueprints for both neural connection and metabolic processes along with continuous circuits based on semicondutctors or superconductors let alone quantum computing. But then for me as a physicist I have to suspend disbelief with element zero and FTL as it is.

Synthesis as proposed would never exist via natural selection. As it is we are all chemical machines anyways using chemical reaction rates at equilibrium to drive thousands of different processes just within a single cell, let alone the entire body. I won't even debate how the latest theories of the sub-conscious represent it as a multitude of disparate desynchronous automata that have to be 'harmonized' at some interpretative level in order to communicate to the conscious mind. Lastly we have no clue how universal DNA is a substrate across planets in the galaxy anyways. It seems plausible for certain planetary conditions. But by no means must be inherently universal across the galaxy unless one has some evidence of pre-seeding. Which is again another fruitless debate.

Anything involving transference or merging with cyberneticswould have to be planted / developed within an organism in a careful fashion I imagine. But hey the green magic space wave fixes this everywhere. Uggh.

I would argue the ethics of the synthesis option in the confines of the ME universe and the writers being trapped in there own plot devices is a very separate discussion from the utlitly of the implementation. Case in point,  I can watch a Star Trek episode knowing that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is routinley violated amost every episode. And we don't even need to argue teleportation across a solar system do we?

[dbkkk]

lillitheris wrote...

Pacifien wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
Forcing an unknown change on everybody — and thus ignoring their position right now — in the hopes that it will do that? Not OK.

In another post, you said something that I didn't respond to at the time "Except for the mind control that makes me think it’s the best thing ever, of course." Which is a sentiment I've seen frequently for those who argue against Synthesis, I think because the epilogue from EDI depicts a utopia.

I'm assuming the sentiment comes from the fact that it's because you cannot fathom agreeing with Synthesis beforehand, so you cannot fathom continuing to agree with it after it occurs. If we take the you out of the equation and look at those shown in EDI's epilogue, those are the people who apparently reached the understanding that Synthesis was supposed to give. Those are the ones who are okay with it.

We don’t know if those people have been changed in some way to think that they’re OK with it. The issue isn’t so much the agreement, it’s that such a fundamental change is unlikely to leave minds untouched — and there’s no way of telling beforehand (or necessarily even after the fact) what may have changed.

lillitheris wrote...
Right. I think the discussion is mostly meaningless if you don’t consider the situation to be ‘real’.

I *have* to approach the situation like that. When people are accusing others of supporting war crimes, when people are saying that by altering one aspect, you aren't you anymore, those are things that hit home personally. I mean, really personally. I enjoy the thought exercise.

A thought exercise that only goes halfway isn’t, really. I’m not saying that you should feel terrible about yourself — it is only a game — but I think that if you’re not actually putting yourself fully in that situation, your understanding thereof would be incomplete.

That is, I hope, why so many Synthesis supporters seem so cavalier about “taking the leap”. It’s a much easier decision if you are just thinking about it from your perspective; as if it just affected you.

Any choice you make is cavalier. By definition. You are deciding the fate of all species in the galaxy. The Destroy option pushes the problem out into the relatively near future if you accept the writers' logic, which is all you have to go on, based on the fact it is their story. If you suggest otherwise then you have to right your own story. T

he Control ending is obvious in what it entails in terms of free will and being forced. That sounds like an ongoing process.

The Synthesis option is a tough call sure, but Shephard has to make tough calls throughout the games. To sacrifice some for the many. People point out the examples where he chooses to leave no one behind, but there are oodles of examples where he does otherwise especially in Mass Effect 3. Most peope seemed scared about the empathy aspect and thus loss of individuality which the writers for better or worse argue is not the case in the EC.

Any decison you make at that point is forcing it on others. Especially the refuse ending for pity's sake. The Destroy end just seems simpler but passes the buck to future generations who will suffer the consequences. Not necessarily bad if there is a resolution. But it is implied strongly by the writers that no such solution exists. Do you really think the Geth-Quarian alliance will really last forever in such close proximity? The organics will always fear what they cannot understand or relate to.

I also no hint in the EC that the Sytnhesis survivors felt or acted 'indoctrinated' in any way. Where do you feel that is shown? Just curious?

Again do I think the writing is sub-par in that you are stuck with three disparate Deux Ex Machina endings? Yep. But assume it is the cards you are dealt. Do you ignore the warnings of a billion plus year old race of machines and assume that all will be hunky-dory between machines and organics even over the next 40 years? How about 400? 4000? Farther out? It might be a question of short vs galactic time scales.

I find the reactions of the parties involved a bit telling. In Destroy the cheer right? All is good and we rebuild, oblivious to future threats that will arise (according to the writers). In Synthesis, everyone is essentially in awe or shock. In Control, it isn't about the organic sapients at all, it is all about Imperius Rex Shephard AI / upgraded Catalyst.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The changes may be one level up in technology from Lazarus-style augmentations, even if they're probably much less extensive, but I don't have the slightest idea why Synthesis shouldn't work the same way.

…Because it fundamentally changes everything. Something that even metaphorically creates a “new DNA”…it’s astronomically unlikely that it would not have significant cognitive effects.

To compare it to cybernetic augmentation is rather silly — or, alternatively, if you think they’re relatively close, that obviates the need for Synthesis to begin with.

Again, if your personal headcanon is that Synthesis does no such thing, that’s perfectly fine. I won‘t begrudge you that. You just can’t use it to argue the benefits of Synthesis over the other options.

[SpectreVeldt]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Pacifien:
Please note that it's the anti-Synthesis faction who says that. As a Synthesis supporter, it is important for me that Synthesis doesn't make you any less you than you were before. You simply have a few additional options for your life. Your perspectives may change over time because of that, but immediately after Synthesis, you are...you. Just as Jacob says about Shepard: "You may have a few extra bits and pieces, but you're still you." The changes may be one level up in technology from Lazarus-style augmentations, even if they're probably much less extensive, but I don't have the slightest idea why Synthesis shouldn't work the same way.
 

While I think that the process is a lot more complex than you think it may be, with quite a number of variables to consider, that may be for another post.  There is an incredible difference between a sentient being merging with technology and a sentient being merging with another sentient being.  I would not consider merging with another sentient being or species (and especially considering how a species like the Geth work---their processes and run functions) merely "a few extra bits and pieces."

[RiouHotaru]

Obviously the process of altering people isn't painful nor traumatic, as the cutscene on Earth shows. If anything it's more jarring for the Husks and Reapers than for the humans. Even the krogan barely bat an eye at it.

So whatever physical changes are made are on the microscopic level.

[TMA LIVE]

Has anyone considered Synthesis doesn't make anyone cyborgs, and more of just evolves them to be able to integrate with technology "in the future", and connect with technology using energy? Like say, evolving everyone to be Biotics, and be able to connect telepathically with technology? To instantly gain data and information from technology wirelessly?

Another thing that's interesting me right now. EDI says she is alive after the beam. While before she said she feels alive. And apparently those are two different things.

So I have to wonder, does being alive simply mean thinking like a human? Or does it mean, because of that green energy, that she can actually "feel"? Like how we feel when touching a rose, touch a hot surface, etc.?