9089 réponses à ce sujet

[dbkkk]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Farid-Yoda-N7 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

the ability to mindlink, but nobody's forced to actually use the new abilities. People can, if they want, live as they did before.

I don't think the game states that people gain the ability to mindlink after synthesis. Are sure synthesis causes people to have this ability?

It's an interpretation of the statement that the legacy of past cycles will be linked to everyone. Not 100% conclusive, no, but very plausible. At the very least, it must be an option immediately available, maybe facilitated by integrated technology.

Ummm reviewing the EC Synthesis ending on Youtube (too lazy to go through another TIM suicide scene and the  dialog with the Star Child, let alone the slowest walk scene imaginable -- gah!) .. there is no mention of a link in EDI's dialog whatsoever. Maybe you and others have been using that term symbolically or based on expectations of synthesis / some sort of technological singularity (which technically is not achieved though very likely hastened if you go by the book definiton).

The exact phrasing is "... bring the collective knowledge of cultures that came before .." and later on EDI talks about "unlimited access to knowledge". That can simply mean a really advanced archives.

EDI also mentions "... now live the lives we wished for" and organics and synthetics "coexist peacefully".

People might have fun writing their own fan fiction, but there is no concept of single species, no special techno-empathic or telepathic "link" mentioned, no mind meld, no loss of individuality ... none of that exists in the actual EC Synthesis ending.

Don't get me wrong I am not defending the poor writing of the endings or the whole Catalyst sequence and all that funky colored 'space magic'. Let alone in the case of Synthesis the violations of the information theory in re-engineering the coding substrate of an organism instantaneoulsy let alone of technological constructs, be they AI, VI or advanced toasters ... but the actual verbiage is rather simplistic.

I am impressed this thread has made it 133 pages. You are commended Ieldra2 for having a (mostly) constructive thread as opposed to most of the trash on BSN.

[Ieldra]

@dbkkk:
I was referring to this sentence by the Catalyst:

"The cycle will end, the Reapers will cease their harvest, and the civilizations preserved in their forms will be connected to all of us."

This can, of course, be interpreted in various ways.... but it fits with pre-EC speculations about mindlinks, both in this thread and in Siduri's epilogues. I believe that the writers picked up on that and this sentence is meant to hint at the possibility. Like most other elements, it's phrased in a way that's deliberately open to interpretation.

Also, there is no loss on individuality and I didn't want to imply that, but linking minds, on several levels between simple communication and conjoining into a greater intelligence, is a theme in Mass Effect. We have good examples (geth, asari) and bad ones (Reapers), and I find it fitting to include it as an element of Synthesis. Again, I did not want to imply that people are in any way forced into it. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 juillet 2012 - 12:32 .

[lillitheris]

Farid-Yoda-N7 wrote...

Ok to make the argument more constructive and make it easier for people who are new to this topic (I know I'm reletively new as well) to join the discussion, I'm going to point out what I think are each sides main arguments:

Opposing Synthesis:
1. Synthesis changes the races genetics in a way that they no longer exist as they did before. The races of the pre-war galaxy are no more.
2. To do what has been done in point 1 without the consent of the people of the galaxy is horrible.
3. Individuals lose their individuality. Collective thought, similar to the geth before uploading the reaper program, has now taken the place of individuals and their opinions.
4. Synthesis indoctrinates individuals to some point. (some ending theories suggest that synthesis is the catalyst tricking Shepard so that he (the catalyst) can control all of the intelligent races in the galaxy)

Broadly. To be specific, my (and some others’) concern is that the results are unknowable. That is, I don’t necessarily believe that it will brainwash/whatever, just that given the few details that are somewhat understood, it’s a possibility that cannot be discounted.

Forcing the change upon everyone — when there is an alternative — is already highly questionable; doing so when you don’t know what’s going to happen is abhorrent and morally repugnant.

Here’s a part I want to stress: if it were possible to only have Synthesis affect you, or volunteers, I would have no problems with you choosing it. I’d think it dumb, but you’re entitled to make your own choices.

And that’s why you study it first. By selecting Control.

Control: Although your goal is to save the races of the galaxy and help rebuild their homes, you are enslaving other races to do so. Methods are just as important as the goals.

You are possibly enslaving possibly sentient creatures that are already enslaved for some time. It’s not great, certainly, but it causes the least permanent harm. The good part about Control is that you can still enact Synthesis later if you deem it appropriate.

As such, it is morally the least problematic option.

Destroy: You are destroying a race, other seperate synthetics and what remains of the minds of thousands of ancient races.

Possibly ancient races. But, yes. The effects are still more restricted than in Synthesis, and it is therefore the better option.

Refuse: If any one, other than Shepard, where to die if I chose synthesis I would have chosen refusal.

but synthesis is the only option where all the people of the galaxy are saved and the former inhabitants are set free.

Maybe. You don’t — cannot — know that.
 

I am quit certain that, as I have mentioned many times before, Individuals are still individuals and races keep their identity despite the changes in their DNA.

It’s great that you’re certain — science isn’t. In fact, it’s overwhelmingly likely that it will cause changes in identity. As in, the odds that it doesn’t are on the order of 1:10^30.
 

But there is still the fact that you don't know if the people of the galaxy approve of your actions but the same is true about all of the other endings. There is no way to know what the collective opinion of the galaxy about the final decision is.

Correct. However, you do know that in Control, you can change course if necessary. You do know the results of the choice you make in Destroy, and you will (possibly) live with the consequences. You don’t know what the hell happens in Synthesis — not even if people are able to disapprove.

Modifié par lillitheris, 14 juillet 2012 - 04:47 .

[Mobius-Silent]

lillitheris wrote...
And that’s why you study it first. By selecting Control.

It's an interesting idea, one I also like.
Control->research-> voluntary synthesis

However there is a _big_ IF

1. Shepard is stripped of empathy and emotion (Sentience -> Sapience) in the Control ending. This may cause _huge_ general problems in understanding.
2. Synthesis requires a sentient actor to develop (Control-Shepard wouldn't be able to do it itself) and to activate, the current implementation requires a voluntary sentient sacrifice, possibly of an exemplar.

But yes Control->synthesis is another interesting option, but IMHO with comparable risk to synthesis.

lillitheris wrote...
It’s great that you’re certain — science isn’t. In fact, it’s overwhelmingly likely that it will cause changes in identity. As in, the odds that it doesn’t are on the order of 1:10^30.

Falling asleep causes a change in identity by that reckoning

Modifié par Mobius-Silent, 14 juillet 2012 - 11:25 .

[I Am Robot]

lillitheris wrote...

Farid-Yoda-N7 wrote...

Ok to make the argument more constructive and make it easier for people who are new to this topic (I know I'm reletively new as well) to join the discussion, I'm going to point out what I think are each sides main arguments:

Opposing Synthesis:
1. Synthesis changes the races genetics in a way that they no longer exist as they did before. The races of the pre-war galaxy are no more.
2. To do what has been done in point 1 without the consent of the people of the galaxy is horrible.
3. Individuals lose their individuality. Collective thought, similar to the geth before uploading the reaper program, has now taken the place of individuals and their opinions.
4. Synthesis indoctrinates individuals to some point. (some ending theories suggest that synthesis is the catalyst tricking Shepard so that he (the catalyst) can control all of the intelligent races in the galaxy)

Broadly. To be specific, my (and some others’) concern is that the results are unknowable. That is, I don’t necessarily believe that it will brainwash/whatever, just that given the few details that are somewhat understood, it’s a possibility that cannot be discounted.

Forcing the change upon everyone — when there is an alternative — is already highly questionable; doing so when you don’t know what’s going to happen is abhorrent and morally repugnant.

Here’s a part I want to stress: if it were possible to only have Synthesis affect you, or volunteers, I would have no problems with you choosing it. I’d think it dumb, but you’re entitled to make your own choices.

And that’s why you study it first. By selecting Control.

Control: Although your goal is to save the races of the galaxy and help rebuild their homes, you are enslaving other races to do so. Methods are just as important as the goals.

You are possibly enslaving possibly sentient creatures that are already enslaved for some time. It’s not great, certainly, but it causes the least permanent harm. The good part about Control is that you can still enact Synthesis later if you deem it appropriate.

As such, it is morally the least problematic option.

Destroy: You are destroying a race, other seperate synthetics and what remains of the minds of thousands of ancient races.

Possibly ancient races. But, yes. The effects are still more restricted than in Synthesis, and it is therefore the better option.

Refuse: If any one, other than Shepard, where to die if I chose synthesis I would have chosen refusal.

but synthesis is the only option where all the people of the galaxy are saved and the former inhabitants are set free.

Maybe. You don’t — cannot — know that.
 

I am quit certain that, as I have mentioned many times before, Individuals are still individuals and races keep their identity despite the changes in their DNA.

It’s great that you’re certain — science isn’t. In fact, it’s overwhelmingly likely that it will cause changes in identity. As in, the odds that it doesn’t are on the order of 1:10^30.
 

But there is still the fact that you don't know if the people of the galaxy approve of your actions but the same is true about all of the other endings. There is no way to know what the collective opinion of the galaxy about the final decision is.

Correct. However, you do know that in Control, you can change course if necessary. You do know the results of the choice you make in Destroy, and you will (possibly) live with the consequences. You don’t know what the hell happens in Synthesis — not even if people are able to disapprove.

Your argument for control is that the reapers may or may not be sentient, which it is said in the game that at least to some extent they are, and then you say that someone else (the catalyst) has been doing the wrong thing for a long time, so it's ok if we do the same which it definitly is not.

For destroy you said that the consequencess are more clear than synthesis therefore it's the better option. But if you choose destroy you are killing the geth, other seperate synthetic beings (such as EDI) and the sentient beings known as the reapers. For me destroy is not an option.

For Synthesis, I argue that you do infact know that all the races will be saved and the cycle will end without anyone dying. As for the reapers although you might not be sure what exactly happens to them, you do know that they are not destroyed or enslaved and will stop fighting other races. you find out that they become a peaceful race sharing their knowledge with others and helping people rebuild their homes. 

At the start you mentioned that it's highly questionable if you force the changes of synthesis, specially if you are not completely sure what will happen. And I agree it is.

But the same is true for all the endings, all the four actions you can take have consequences and you are forcing those consequences upon the races of the galaxy without knowing if they approve of any of those actions or not.  

Lastly I will point out that Mass Effect is a work of Science Fiction. Therefore not everything that happens in it has to be proven scientifically possible. In this case what has been mentioned in the game is more valid as evidence than scientific facts.

Modifié par Farid-Yoda-N7, 15 juillet 2012 - 12:22 .

[I Am Robot]

double post

Modifié par Farid-Yoda-N7, 15 juillet 2012 - 12:19 .

[Luxure]

 I'll just quote a good friend of mine.

Humankind has always sought to improve itself; from the earliest iterations of civilization, we improved our minds through education and the pursuit of knowledge, our souls through the quest for spiritual truth, and our bodies through the eradication of disease and hunger.

You will forgive me, perhaps, when I dare to say that the human being is a divine engine - it is the ultimate expression of life on our Earth, and so it is a most precious and sacred thing. Humanity is what we have, it is what we are.

But that purity falls beneath a shadow, and that shadow is greed, it is weakness. The power is at our fingertips to replace flesh with steel and plastic. But the truth is this: for each piece of yourself you surrender, your humanity dies a little more. You are no better.

- William Taggart

P.S. Have you ever watched Surrogates ? You should.
http://en.wikipedia....rrogates_(film) 

Modifié par Luxure, 15 juillet 2012 - 03:42 .

[I Am Robot]

Luxure wrote...
  I'll just quote a good friend of mine.

Humankind has always sought to improve itself; from the earliest iterations of civilization, we improved our minds through education and the pursuit of knowledge, our souls through the quest for spiritual truth, and our bodies through the eradication of disease and hunger.

You will forgive me, perhaps, when I dare to say that the human being is a divine engine - it is the ultimate expression of life on our Earth, and so it is a most precious and sacred thing. Humanity is what we have, it is what we are.

But that purity falls beneath a shadow, and that shadow is greed, it is weakness. The power is at our fingertips to replace flesh with steel and plastic. But the truth is this: for each piece of yourself you surrender, your humanity dies a little more. You are no better.

- William Taggart  

 Well synthesis is not a kiind artificial augmentation it's a kind of fast tracked evolution. Don't get me wrong I'm strongly against radical movements to augmentate humans such as those shown in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, but there is a huge diffrence between something like that and synthesis. The main problem there is that because these augmentations are created artificially by companies, those companies can put devices in the augmentations that could make them capable of controlling people and the second big problem is that the human body rejects these parts and users have to consume medications to counter these rejections, after a while they could even become addicted to these medications and...

back to mass effect. synthesis is a natural evolution that happens in an instant. so these new changes are not rejected by the body, no flesh is replaced by steel and plastic,although the composition of that flesh does change, and most importantly we do not loose our identity. 

Now in that quote it is correctly portrayed that the divinity of human beings comes from their intellect.
And what we (those who support synthesis) have been arguing is that our intellect still has all the abilities it had before. Some new abilities have been added to it but non of the former abilities are gone.

@dbkkk
 
   I agree, no form of telepathic comunication is made possible by synthesis.

Modifié par Farid-Yoda-N7, 15 juillet 2012 - 05:23 .

[Aurora313]

Chashan wrote...
In this case, I would like to point you to the conversation with the Reaper on Rannoch:

www.youtube.com/watch

It is very telling that at the end of this, the Reaper shuts down / "dies", giving a good idea what its preferred consensus appears to be, which is to see its existence end. By extension, it appears likely the other Reapers, enslaved and bereft of their original existence as they are, may very well see it the same way.

I apologise, I know this is about a week late, but I just love at the end of this scene when you take the interrupt how Shepard swungs out his arms a little as if brushing himself off and saying 'I'm done with you. Rest in peace.'

[Ieldra]

Aurora313 wrote...

Chashan wrote...
In this case, I would like to point you to the conversation with the Reaper on Rannoch:

www.youtube.com/watch

It is very telling that at the end of this, the Reaper shuts down / "dies", giving a good idea what its preferred consensus appears to be, which is to see its existence end. By extension, it appears likely the other Reapers, enslaved and bereft of their original existence as they are, may very well see it the same way.

I apologise, I know this is about a week late, but I just love at the end of this scene when you take the interrupt how Shepard swungs out his arms a little as if brushing himself off and saying 'I'm done with you. Rest in peace.'

I'd say it is most appropriate, if you're going to choose the Synthesis ending, to choose the left option "Make us understand" in the conversation with the Reaper on Rannoch.

@Farid-Yoda-N7, dbkkk:
How do you interpret the Catalyst's statement: "The cycle will end, the Reapers will cease their harvest, and the civilizations preserved in their forms will be connected to all of us."

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 juillet 2012 - 12:54 .

[Xilizhra]

So... is there a consensus that it would be extremely silly for anyone to make new "ordinary" synthetics after Synthesis? My opinion is that it'd be simple technological regression, and of no use to anyone.

[Aurora313]

New Synthesis fiction 'Piece of the Puzzle'. A Shenko. This is an experiment. I'm not a skilled writer and don't expect frequent updates.

Modifié par Aurora313, 15 juillet 2012 - 01:06 .

[Ieldra]

Aurora313 wrote...
New Synthesis fiction 'Piece of the Puzzle'. A Shenko. This is an experiment. I'm not a skilled writer and don't expect frequent updates.

Nice. I can see where this might be going. I'm very curious how you'll write this, and looking forward to seeing your experiment continue. May I remark that you used two different first names for Shepard in this chapter...

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 juillet 2012 - 02:23 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Xilizhra wrote...

So... is there a consensus that it would be extremely silly for anyone to make new "ordinary" synthetics after Synthesis? My opinion is that it'd be simple technological regression, and of no use to anyone.

I thought that too. They might make VIs and stuff, but they aren't true synthetic LIFE (like EDI or the Geth). And those accidentally developing sentience would receive a far better deal than the galaxy in other cases.

Modifié par pirate1802, 15 juillet 2012 - 05:54 .

[Vigilant111]

Xilizhra wrote...

So... is there a consensus that it would be extremely silly for anyone to make new "ordinary" synthetics after Synthesis? My opinion is that it'd be simple technological regression, and of no use to anyone.

Oh not a problem, they will be made to perform tasks that require little skills

[lillitheris]

Xilizhra wrote...

So... is there a consensus that it would be extremely silly for anyone to make new "ordinary" synthetics after Synthesis? My opinion is that it'd be simple technological regression, and of no use to anyone.

No, there isn’t.

What’re you going to do for computing for, say, 24/7 operating of a climate control system, just plug some person in and leave them to it while you do something more interesting?

Actually, I suppose that’d be OK in the reckoning of most pro-Synths.

[Ieldra]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
So... is there a consensus that it would be extremely silly for anyone to make new "ordinary" synthetics after Synthesis? My opinion is that it'd be simple technological regression, and of no use to anyone.

Oh not a problem, they will be made to perform tasks that require little skills

Then they're not more than VIs. People apparently forget that not any computer is an AI.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 juillet 2012 - 05:15 .

[lillitheris]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

1. Shepard is stripped of empathy and emotion (Sentience -> Sapience) in the Control ending. This may cause _huge_ general problems in understanding.

Not really relevant. It’s not Shepard understanding.

2. Synthesis requires a sentient actor to develop (Control-Shepard wouldn't be able to do it itself) and to activate, the current implementation requires a voluntary sentient sacrifice, possibly of an exemplar.

So you arrange Galactic Olympics and the winner gets to be disintegrated.

But yes Control->synthesis is another interesting option, but IMHO with comparable risk to synthesis.

No, because the risks are known.

lillitheris wrote...
It’s great that you’re certain — science isn’t. In fact, it’s overwhelmingly likely that it will cause changes in identity. As in, the odds that it doesn’t are on the order of 1:10^30.

Falling asleep causes a change in identity by that reckoning

No, it doesn’t. Sleep isn’t magic. Your brain does not shut down, it does not suddenly become constructed of marshmallow…

Even if it were the case that there was some type of quantum transference going on in sleep — which is possible — you can’t declare that this automatically ‘solves’ Synthesis. Just because B ≠ A, C ≠ A does not mean that C = B.

So, no.

Modifié par lillitheris, 15 juillet 2012 - 10:11 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
So... is there a consensus that it would be extremely silly for anyone to make new "ordinary" synthetics after Synthesis? My opinion is that it'd be simple technological regression, and of no use to anyone.

Oh not a problem, they will be made to perform tasks that require little skills

Then they're not more than VIs. People apparently forget that not any computer is an AI.

Can you make up your mind about what is ‘a synthetic’?

[lillitheris]

Farid-Yoda-N7 wrote...

 Well synthesis is not a kiind artificial augmentation it's a kind of fast tracked evolution. Don't get me wrong I'm strongly against radical movements to augmentate humans such as those shown in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, but there is a huge diffrence between something like that and synthesis.

This makes absolutely no f— sense. At all.

back to mass effect. synthesis is a natural evolution that happens in an instant.

Oh, so what you’re saying is that Synthesis is completely unnecessary and doesn’t actually do anything? Then your previous argument about a smaller change (Deus Ex) being actually larger makes sense. I guess.

Seriously, people.

If you want to come up with this magic unicorn Synthesis, by all means, do so! But don’t try to claim that the game presents it anything like this. It doesn’t.

I’m just going to assume that you’re acknowledging that Synthesis in ME3 is actually a bad thing, and you wouldn’t select it.

[Xilizhra]

It's badly presented by the Catalyst, but what we actually see in-game in the final cutscene is good. If anything needs to be headcanoned, it's the Catalyst explaining more.

[Luxure]

Farid-Yoda-N7 wrote...

Luxure wrote...
 

 Well synthesis is not a kiind artificial augmentation it's a kind of fast tracked evolution. Don't get me wrong I'm strongly against radical movements to augmentate humans such as those shown in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, but there is a huge diffrence between something like that and synthesis. The main problem there is that because these augmentations are created artificially by companies, those companies can put devices in the augmentations that could make them capable of controlling people and the second big problem is that the human body rejects these parts and users have to consume medications to counter these rejections, after a while they could even become addicted to these medications and...

back to mass effect. synthesis is a natural evolution that happens in an instant. so these new changes are not rejected by the body, no flesh is replaced by steel and plastic,although the composition of that flesh does change, and most importantly we do not loose our identity. 

Now in that quote it is correctly portrayed that the divinity of human beings comes from their intellect.
And what we (those who support synthesis) have been arguing is that our intellect still has all the abilities it had before. Some new abilities have been added to it but non of the former abilities are gone.

@dbkkk
 
   I agree, no form of telepathic comunication is made possible by synthesis.

What ? Becoming a machine is the last stage of evolution ? How can evolution turn flesh into metal ? That's just fuc.ked up. You say that those augmentation were created artificially by companies. Well, the Reapers, they were created "artificially" aswell. So was the Citadel and the StarBrat. Who says the StarBrat won't control all life in the Galaxy now that we've merged with the god damn Reapers that we were trying to destroy since the first Mass Effect ? Damn.

[Ieldra]

@Luxure:
The whole scenario is based on the premise that technology (in form of AI) advances faster than organics' natural capabilities. Given this, three different ways into the future are presented to us:

(1) Stick to our nature as given and hope for the best (Destroy)
(2) Accept that we'll one day be ruled by synthetic overlords (Control)
(3) Integrate technology into ourselves to upgrade our natural capabilities and see where that takes us (Synthesis)

Also, the term "evolution" is used in a very loose sense here, of course there is no end to evolution, neither of the natural or artificial kind. The idea behind Synthesis is that we need to change our nature in order to survive long-term, and that depending on natural evolution will get us nowhere fast enough. In this case, the change is to give organics the ability to seamlessly and naturally integrate technology.

[Luxure]

Stick to our nature as given and hope for the best ? I'm twelve, and what is this ? We've been sticking to our nature as given for millenia, and we didn't have to "hope for the best". Seriously dude. I assume you don't really enjoy life. Stupid... just stupid.

[Ieldra]

Luxure wrote...
Stick to our nature as given and hope for the best ? I'm twelve, and what is this ? We've been sticking to our nature as given for millenia, and we didn't have to "hope for the best". Seriously dude. I assume you don't really enjoy life. Stupid... just stupid.

LOL. You make a lot of assumptions. Yeah, we've been doing that because we've had no other choice, and we've been rather lucky for surviving. ME3 presents us with a scenario where that might not be enough any more. Apart from that, I recommend being not so fast with calling something stupid. I get that Synthesis evokes some rather emotional responses, but they're not good arguments.