9089 réponses à ce sujet

[DirtyPhoenix]

lillitheris wrote...
I’m not saying that someone couldn’t think it was justified. People obviously seem to think it’s perfectly OK to violate everybody’s right to self-determination because they feel this is the best long-term solution all things considered.

Fixed

I’m only saying that I think it abhorrent, and would do anything in my power to prevent such a person from being in a position to make that choice.

Too bad our shepards can't fight it out{smilie}

Heh, I don’t think anyone else on the pro-Synthetic side really agrees with this. They’re distinctly in the (unknown) ends justifies the means–camp.

And why are the two views mutually exclusive? I do believe the end justifies the means (stomping on other's rights) which is why this is a morally grey choice and which is why my paragon shepard would never pick it.

The Catalyst must be considered trustworthy (possibly incorrect, but not lying) for this discussion to have any point at all. We also factor out the possibility of the Crucible just blowing up and similar things because they affect every choice equally.

If we consider the catalyst to be trustworthy but incorrect/misinformed about how the crucible works, then there can be far worse worst-case scenarios than what you listed.

Modifié par pirate1802, 16 juillet 2012 - 03:44 .

[lillitheris]

pirate1802 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
I’m not saying that someone couldn’t think it was justified. People obviously seem to think it’s perfectly OK to violate everybody’s right to self-determination because they feel this is the best long-term solution all things considered.

Fixed

Cute, but this leaves the Control question. If we assume good outcomes, Control is by far preferable.

Heh, I don’t think anyone else on the pro-Synthetic side really agrees with this. They’re distinctly in the (unknown) ends justifies the means–camp.

And why are the two views mutually exclusive? I do believe the end justifies the means (stomping on other's rights) which is why this is a morally grey choice and which is why my paragon shepard would never pick it.

To clarify, I think they consider it a morally just and (relatively) unproblematic choice. The violation is just an afterthought that can be dismissed out of hand. I’d be happy to see acknowledgement, but it doesn’t seem forthcoming.

Now, the ends vs. means thing opens up two jars: one is the Control jar, but even that is born from the fundamental problem that in the case of Synthesis, the ends are not actually known.

So, the means are being justified by turning a blind eye and wishing.

And then we’re back to the point that if you want to ignore the safer option (Control) and take a complete leap of faith—that’s perfectly OK, you’re within your rights to do that. I don’t think it wise, but you’re entitled to. But only for yourself, not anyone else.

If we consider the catalyst to be trustworthy but incorrect/misinformed about how the crucible works, then there can be far worse worst-case scenarios than what you listed.

Yes, but those affect each choice equally, and can therefore be factored out. It’s another unknowable factor.

[lillitheris]

Heeden wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

– Destroy will kill the geth, and EDI, and the risk of synthetic-organic war remains.

– Control will result in ShepardAI going rogue and attempts restarting the cycle OR ShepardAI becomes an evil overlord, oppressing everybody. The risk of war remains.

– Synthesis destroys the personality of everyone it affects, but there is no risk of the resultant creatures being killed by synthetics.

Destroy could kill everyone, the Catalyst says we will "lose no more than has already been lost", but the cycle has been going on for millions (a billion?) of years. Synthesis = Mind Control is a bigger jump than Destroy = Uninhabitable Galaxy.

This isn’t correct based on the explanation given by the Catalyst.

(Bonus points for creativity. You might have a silly but valid leg to stand on if the Catalyst’s wording was slightly different, but of course it isn’t—and that would open up the door for creative interpretations of everything else, too.)

The worst-case Control dystopia is worse than your worst-case Synthesis dystopia because at least with Synthesis sentient beings are being brain-washed to appreciate the new situation.

That’s…pretty terrifying if you actually think so. With Control you still have some options—some hope.

There’s a Christian Bale movie, I don’t recall what it’s called…one where everyone’s medicated to be content. You might enjoy it until the part where the good guys win.

Modifié par lillitheris, 16 juillet 2012 - 03:52 .

[Heeden]

lillitheris wrote...

Cute, but this leaves the Control question. If we assume good outcomes, Control is by far preferable.

Assuming a good outcome, Synthesis gives us sunshine and rainbows whilst Control still involves enslaving sentient beings and Shepard becoming de facto ruler of the galaxy.

To clarify, I think they consider it a morally just and (relatively) unproblematic choice. The violation is just an afterthought that can be dismissed out of hand. I’d be happy to see acknowledgement, but it doesn’t seem forthcoming.

We have three possible actions; one kills sentient creatures, one enslaves sentient creatures and the last creates some sort of change that sentient creatures will have to deal with. Given the moral grey area all of the choices inhabit I (and several Synthesis supporters in this thread) ignore the morality of the action because it does not point firmly to one particular choice being "good", although decent arguments can be made for Destroy and Control being more "evil".

Now, the ends vs. means thing opens up two jars: one is the Control jar, but even that is born from the fundamental problem that in the case of Synthesis, the ends are not actually known.

The actual results are unknown for all choices at the time of making the decision.

[lillitheris]

Heeden wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Cute, but this leaves the Control question. If we assume good outcomes, Control is by far preferable.

Assuming a good outcome, Synthesis gives us sunshine and rainbows whilst Control still involves enslaving sentient beings and Shepard becoming de facto ruler of the galaxy.

…Assuming a good outcome, Control involves lots of studying, seeing if the Reapers are actually nations or just AIs, deciding on a course of action. And possibly, in the end, Synthesis—if it’s been agreed to be a prudent step to take.

I wonder how far you can string along avoiding the question.

The actual results are unknown for all choices at the time of making the decision.

Unknown, unknowable. I guess you still don’t grasp it.

[Heeden]

[quote]lillitheris wrote...

Destroy could kill everyone, the Catalyst says we will "lose no more than has already been lost", but the cycle has been going on for millions (a billion?) of years. Synthesis = Mind Control is a bigger jump than Destroy = Uninhabitable Galaxy.[/quote]

This isn’t correct based on the explanation given by the Catalyst.

(Bonus points for creativity. You might have a silly but valid leg to stand on if the Catalyst’s wording was slightly different, but of course it isn’t—and that would open up the door for creative interpretations of everything else, too.)[/quote]

I thought that was the whole point of your exercise, hence the obsession with mind-control even though it isn't correct based on the explanation given by the Catalyst, and at least I have a quote I can use to extrapolate that worst-case Destroy.

[quote]That’s…pretty terrifying if you actually think so. With Control you still have some options—some hope.

There’s a Christian Bale movie, I don’t recall what it’s called…one where everyone’s medicated to be content. You might enjoy it until the part where the good guys win.
[/quote]

Equilibrium, it's like 1984 meets the Matrix and you're right, the way the good guys won was silly (shooting monitors does not destroy computers).

However the victory in Equilibrium came from the regime being a bit shoddy, in 1984 the hero could never have gotten so far with his rebellion and with the full might of the Reapers behind him Shepard could easilly repress the galaxy more completely than almost any other dictator in fiction.

[Heeden]

lillitheris wrote...

Heeden wrote...

Assuming a good outcome, Synthesis gives us sunshine and rainbows whilst Control still involves enslaving sentient beings and Shepard becoming de facto ruler of the galaxy.

…Assuming a good outcome, Control involves lots of studying, seeing if the Reapers are actually nations or just AIs, deciding on a course of action. And possibly, in the end, Synthesis—if it’s been agreed to be a prudent step to take.

But if you're assuming a good outcome whatever you do, why not take the short-cut and go straight to Synthesis instead of keeping the Reapers held in bondage?

I wonder how far you can string along avoiding the question.

What question - was it the silly hypothetical with an obvious bias against one particular option?

[DirtyPhoenix]

Yes, but those affect each choice equally, and can therefore be factored out. It’s another unknowable factor.

I'm not talking about those. What if the catalyst miscalculates the amount of damage done to organics in destroy, and it ends up scorching the entire galaxy as the other person said? Or in control Shepard AI becomes even more viscious than catalyst and comes out with more outlandish solutions to his "problem" Isn't being brainwashed into being friends with as we see, now-harmless reapers preferable to death, or being subjected the reaper-shepard's bizarre solutions which can be far worse than brainwashing or death even?

Also, unknowable for whom? Us or the catalyst? If it is for us then I agree the unknowables are more than the other outcomes. But it is unknowables for the catalyst then similar unknowables might exist for his other solutions too.

[lillitheris]

Heeden wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Heeden wrote...

Assuming a good outcome, Synthesis gives us sunshine and rainbows whilst Control still involves enslaving sentient beings and Shepard becoming de facto ruler of the galaxy.

…Assuming a good outcome, Control involves lots of studying, seeing if the Reapers are actually nations or just AIs, deciding on a course of action. And possibly, in the end, Synthesis—if it’s been agreed to be a prudent step to take.

But if you're assuming a good outcome whatever you do, why not take the short-cut and go straight to Synthesis instead of keeping the Reapers held in bondage?

Because you want to do the responsible thing and study as much as you can, and allow other people to give their input.

A comprehensive analysis—that is, one that accounts for both the good and the bad—tilts the case even further in favor of Control, since its downsides are more manageable.

(The real reason is that you can’t be assured of the benefits of Synthesis, but I’m not going to pursue that until this unknown/unknowable is clearer…)

I wonder how far you can string along avoiding the question.

What question - was it the silly hypothetical with an obvious bias against one particular option?

Can you articulate what the problem was, exactly? I thought it rather simple.

[flemm]

lillitheris wrote...

Yes, it’s absolutely correct to say that the future—the actual consequences—are unknown in each case.

Where the problem lies is in Synthesis being unknowable. That is, it is not possible for a creature at our level to comprehend the changes. As the thread title says, it’s supposed to be an ‘ascension’—a new level of consciousness. By definition we are unable to understand what that means in reality.

So whereas for the other options can be reasoned about, and their potential consequences can be mapped out, Synthesis by definition cannot. It is therefore impossible to make an educated decision concerning Synthesis.

I'm not sure that reasoning is sound. I mean, it may be, but I think there are problems.

Examples:
-Do we know enough about the technology involved in the Mass Effect relays and the Reapers (and related stuff) to really be able to predict the potential consequences of destroy with any more certainty than Synthesis? My initial reaction is: probably not. It's just intuitively easier to envision destroy (and therefore to assume that the consequences of that choice are knowable). That doesn't mean we really understand what the impact will be, or even that we *can* understand it.

-For Control, similarly, can we really predict what the new guardian will be like or what changes will occur with any certainty at all? Can we have any idea of what it even means to exist as this entity? Probably not. It feels somewhat similar to the status quo, but that doesn't mean it will be.

(We can fall back on the epilogues to elucidate the consequences of those other choices, but we can also do that with synthesis.)

It's fairly easy to imagine worst-case scenarios for both destroy and control (based on available information at the time of the choice) that are at least as bad as the ones you describe for synthesis.

On the other hand, it seems that Synthesis has the potential to be the best-case scenario: neither synthetic nor organic life is destroyed, the cycle is ended definitively, vast knowledge of ancient civilisations is accessed, synthetics and organics both benefit from the "synthesis."

So, I don't know. If worst-case is just as bad, and best-case is better in Synthesis, and none of the choices have knowable consequences at the moment the choice is made, then that's probably a reason to choose synthesis.

Modifié par flemm, 16 juillet 2012 - 04:52 .

[RiouHotaru]

Given that the slides were confirmed to take place 10-15 years in the future (possibly more), I believe that debunks any notion of brainwashing.

[lillitheris]

pirate1802 wrote...

Yes, but those affect each choice equally, and can therefore be factored out. It’s another unknowable factor.

I'm not talking about those. What if the catalyst miscalculates the amount of damage done to organics in destroy, and it ends up scorching the entire galaxy as the other person said?

That’s out of your hands, and therefore not a factor. And it’s equally likely that the Catalyst would misjudge Synthesis or Control. Those all cancel eachother out, as far as your decision is concerned.

Or in control Shepard AI becomes even more viscious than catalyst and comes out with more outlandish solutions to his "problem"

Then you’re back in square one, and you fight.

Isn't being brainwashed into being friends with as we see, now-harmless reapers preferable to death, or being subjected the reaper-shepard's bizarre solutions which can be far worse than brainwashing or death even?

In short, no. There’s a very long answer to this, but it boils down to two things:

1. Freedom of thought is of ultimate importance.
2. So long as you are yourself, there is hope. You’ve had a little respite, you have new information, and you can fight back.

Also, unknowable for whom? Us or the catalyst? If it is for us then I agree the unknowables are more than the other outcomes. But it is unknowables for the catalyst then similar unknowables might exist for his other solutions too.

The Catalyst does not, supposedly, understand the all of the process (or outcomes) either. If he did, that’d have some unpleasant implications—and some good ones, like just dissecting the Citadel to find out what it does. (It’s important to remember that the Catalyst can’t be both super-advanced, and a simple VI.)

Modifié par lillitheris, 16 juillet 2012 - 04:53 .

[lillitheris]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Given that the slides were confirmed to take place 10-15 years in the future (possibly more), I believe that debunks any notion of brainwashing.

…I hate to keep repeating this, because it doesn’t really matter, but it doesn’t disprove it. A brainwashed person is unaware of it.

[RiouHotaru]

One of the biggest issues is: "How could the Galaxy come to accept the Reapers?"

It's answered by the timeframe. 10-15 years is a rather long time. The only way you could say brainwashing is a possible conclusion is to state everyone was brainwashed the moment Synthesis took place, and there's absolutely zero evidence of that.

[lillitheris]

flemm wrote...
-Do we know enough about the technology involved in the Mass Effect relays and the Reapers (and related stuff) to really be able to predict the potential consequences of destroy with any more certainty than Synthesis?

Given the Catalyst’s exposition, yes. It says it will destroy the geth, and (presumably) other synthetics. That’s it.

My initial reaction is: probably not. It's just intuitively easier to envision destroy (and therefore to assume that the consequences of that choice are knowable). That doesn't mean we really understand what the impact will be, or even that we *can* understand it.

This is a contention that sounds good, but it’s really just a variant of “what if everyone turns into ponies?” There is nothing that makes such events—divine intervention-style—specific to a particular choice. They aren’t intrinsic to that particular choice.

Therefore, they factor out.

-For Control, similarly, can we really predict what the new guardian will be like or what changes will occur with any certainty at all? Can we have any idea of what it even means to exist as this entity? Probably not. It feels somewhat similar to the status quo, but that doesn't mean it will be.

All we know is that ‘Shepard’ controls the Reapers. Initially, at least, some level of Shepard’s morals and thought processes are imposed on them…what the future brings, whether ShepardAI loses its humanity…that’s uncertain—but also likely to be quite some time in the future.

It's fairly easy to imagine worst-case scenarios for both destroy and control (based on available information at the time of the choice) that are at least as bad as the ones you describe for synthesis.

Go ahead, what’ve you got? Based on the description the Catalyst gives, mind.

On the other hand, it seems that Synthesis has the potential to be the best-case scenario: neither synthetic nor organic life is destroyed, the cycle is ended definitively, vast knowledge of ancient civilisations is accessed, synthetics and organics both benefit from the "synthesis."

Potential, yes, but you don’t know that. That is why Control is more prudent.

Control -> avoid violating everyone’s rights -> study -> possibly release the Reapers -> possibly Synthesis.

Modifié par lillitheris, 16 juillet 2012 - 05:14 .

[lillitheris]

RiouHotaru wrote...

One of the biggest issues is: "How could the Galaxy come to accept the Reapers?"

It's answered by the timeframe. 10-15 years is a rather long time. The only way you could say brainwashing is a possible conclusion is to state everyone was brainwashed the moment Synthesis took place, and there's absolutely zero evidence of that.

You don’t understand: given the description of the change in Synthesis, the possibility of cognitive changes cannot be ruled out. Whether such changes have occurred, I couldn’t say.

If someone else is claiming that people are brainwashed for certain, however, I disagree.

[RiouHotaru]

I'm not arguing there aren't cognitive changes. The Catalyst basically confirms changes will occur. Organics will gain the technological edge that originally made synthetics physically superior.

What I'm arguing is that the idea people were brainwashed seems farfetched, and feels more like people making an ass-pull to validate a dislike for Synthesis.

[zyntifox]

RiouHotaru wrote...

I'm not arguing there aren't cognitive changes. The Catalyst basically confirms changes will occur. Organics will gain the technological edge that originally made synthetics physically superior.

What I'm arguing is that the idea people were brainwashed seems farfetched, and feels more like people making an ass-pull to validate a dislike for Synthesis.

But isn't cognitive changes = brainwashing?

[webhead921]

deleted double post.  Uh-oh, spaghettios

Modifié par webhead921, 16 juillet 2012 - 10:25 .

[webhead921]

I don't think that there are cognitive changes. I think people gain new abilities/skills/attributes via synthesis, and many people will interpret things differently as a result. Also, there will be a greater access to information. Somewhat like a person who is hard of hearing who gains an appreciation for mozart after getting good hearing aids and taking a music history class

[flemm]

lillitheris wrote...
Given the Catalyst’s exposition, yes. It says it will destroy the geth, and (presumably) other synthetics. That’s it.

Oh, well, if we can take the Catalyst at its word then the "synthesis might be brainwashing" argument becomes silly.

Modifié par flemm, 16 juillet 2012 - 06:10 .

[Dr. Doctor]

I get the feeling that Synthesis isn't so much about turning organics into Deus Ex-style transhumans as it is introducing the ability for organics and synthetics to communicate with one another. Think David Archer in Overlord.

When Legion tells Shepard that the Geth communicate using a language based off of mathematics Shepard has a hard time comprehending how math could be used as a means of communication. Meanwhile, synthetics have a hard time grasping organic concepts such as hope and spirituality. Conflict usually comes from misunderstanding so by giving synthetics the ability to grasp organic concepts and organics the ability to communicate with synthetics the chance of coexistence increases.

Either that or the Catalyst just altered organics and synthetics enough so that they wouldn't register as either form of life in his programming and called it a day.

[Shaigunjoe]

Dr. Doctor wrote...

I get the feeling that Synthesis isn't so much about turning organics into Deus Ex-style transhumans as it is introducing the ability for organics and synthetics to communicate with one another. Think David Archer in Overlord.

When Legion tells Shepard that the Geth communicate using a language based off of mathematics Shepard has a hard time comprehending how math could be used as a means of communication. Meanwhile, synthetics have a hard time grasping organic concepts such as hope and spirituality. Conflict usually comes from misunderstanding so by giving synthetics the ability to grasp organic concepts and organics the ability to communicate with synthetics the chance of coexistence increases.

Either that or the Catalyst just altered organics and synthetics enough so that they wouldn't register as either form of life in his programming and called it a day.

I'm not sure if thats what definitly happened, but I feel like thats definitly in the spirit of synthesis.

[Shaigunjoe]

Cstaf wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

I'm not arguing there aren't cognitive changes. The Catalyst basically confirms changes will occur. Organics will gain the technological edge that originally made synthetics physically superior.

What I'm arguing is that the idea people were brainwashed seems farfetched, and feels more like people making an ass-pull to validate a dislike for Synthesis.

But isn't cognitive changes = brainwashing?

I don't think so, cognition is a group of mental processes, I think brainwashing would fall under the making decisions category, which is a member of the cognitive group, but it is not all encompassing.

[Ieldra]

RiouHotaru wrote...
I'm not arguing there aren't cognitive changes. The Catalyst basically confirms changes will occur. Organics will gain the technological edge that originally made synthetics physically superior.

What I'm arguing is that the idea people were brainwashed seems farfetched, and feels more like people making an ass-pull to validate a dislike for Synthesis.

That's what I'm arguing, too. I wish we could move on from this topic and debate something interesting for a change. Hearing that the epilogue timeframe is 10-15 years should help.

For a different topic, there seemed to be some disagreement about how the Catalyst's statement "The civilizations preserved in their forms will be connected to all of us" is to be interpreted. I see this as some kind of communication, which I've called "mental networking".